switch_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses one side effect ('Next time you open the Grok Bot desktop app, it will launch directly into this account'), but says nothing about auth/permission requirements, reversibility, or whether an in-flight CLI session is affected. Partial disclosure only.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the persistence detail. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a single-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers purpose, scope, and the key persistence effect. It could still note whether an active session is disrupted or what happens to the previously active account, but the definition is adequate for a low-complexity tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the 'account' parameter is well documented in the schema with examples ('main', 'company'). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Switch') and resource ('the active account') with explicit scope: Cursor / Grok Bot across CLI/MCP and the macOS desktop app. This clearly distinguishes it from the bot/message-oriented siblings like list_bots and send_message.

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?

The description implies when the tool is relevant (to change the active account) but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, prerequisites, or alternatives. No sibling competes for this function, so the omission is minor, but guidance is only implied.

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