switch

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key side effects and behaviors: recording rollback_generation first, returning a structured summary with generation before/after, trimming the log unless full_log, no implicit validation unless validate, and a 'privilege' diagnosis on sudo auth failure. This is comprehensive and honest.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every clause adds operational detail—rollback recording, summary contents, log trimming, validation gating, and error handling—without redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity and existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers success and failure paths, output summary, and log behavior. The only omissions are explicit values for 'mode' and the purpose of 'flake_uri', which are minor given the schema defaults and overall context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains full_log and validate, and implies the meaning of mode via 'nixos-rebuild switch / home-manager switch'. However, flake_uri is not mentioned at all, leaving a gap for one of the four parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Activate' with the resource 'configuration', and explicitly mentions both 'sudo nixos-rebuild switch' and 'home-manager switch'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'build' and 'check', making the purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states when to use the tool (to activate configuration) and gives concrete usage guidance: pass full_log=True for complete logs and validate=True to gate on check('dry-build'). It also explains the default behavior (no implicit validation). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude cases, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.