config_switch_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that switching occurs but does not mention persistence, side effects, whether the profile must exist, or what happens if the switch fails. For a state-changing operation, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, compact sentence with a clear front-loaded verb and no redundant words. Every word contributes to comprehension.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides useful context by indicating 'within the current environment'. It is adequate for basic invocation but lacks details about available profiles or behavioral consequences, which prevents a higher score.

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?

The input schema already describes profileName as 'Name of the profile to switch to' with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Switch') and resource ('profile'), and scopes it to 'within the current environment'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like config_switch_environment and config_update_profile, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage by context but provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention prerequisites such as listing available profiles (config_list_profiles) or how it differs from switching environments, leaving the agent to infer.

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