aws_switch_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the concrete side effect — rewriting the default profile in ~/.aws/credentials — which is genuinely useful. However, it omits failure modes (behavior if the profile name doesn't exist), whether other profiles are preserved, and reversibility, leaving meaningful gaps for a persistent mutation.

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?

Front-loaded single sentence stating the action and its target file, followed by a compact Args block. The Args header repeats the schema's parameter name, which is mild redundancy, but the examples justify the space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the core effect and parameter meaning. For a persistent credential mutation with no annotations, the absence of error behavior and permission requirements leaves the definition only adequately complete.

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, and it does: it explains that profile_name is the profile to set as default and supplies concrete examples ('dev', 'prod', 'qa'). It stops short of stating constraints such as case sensitivity or whether the profile must pre-exist.

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?

Specific verb (switch) and resource (default AWS credentials profile), plus the concrete location of the effect (~/.aws/credentials). It is clearly distinguishable in kind from read-oriented siblings like aws_list_profiles, but it never names or contrasts with a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 states what the tool does but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. whether the profile must already exist), and no mention of alternatives such as aws_ensure_credentials or aws_get_session_env. The use case is only inferable from the verb itself.

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