sap_profile_switch

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It reveals side effects: reloading client, signer, connection, and policy. The confirm parameter's description further states potential changes to signer, network, and policy. This provides good behavioral context, though it could detail reversibility or permission requirements.

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?

Single sentence, directly stating the tool's purpose and effects. No unnecessary words. The description is front-loaded with the main action.

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 switch operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects. It explains what reloads and implies the need for an existing profile. It could mention expected return values (e.g., success indication) but remains adequate.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It mentions 'existing profile' but doesn't clarify that profileName must be from sap_profile_list or other source.

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 specifies the action (switch), the target resource (live SAP MCP runtime to another existing profile), and what reloads (client, signer, connection, policy). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sap_profile_current (get current) and sap_profile_list (list profiles).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites like listing profiles first with sap_profile_list or checking the current profile with sap_profile_current. The description lacks when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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