switch_active_business

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes the switch impacts checkout defaults, but it does not state whether the change is persistent beyond the current session, what permissions are required, or whether it can be reverted. The lack of side-effect details leaves significant uncertainty for a mutation operation.

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, efficient sentence that presents the action first and adds the purpose parenthetically. It is appropriately front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 this is a simple tool, the description covers the basic 'do this' aspect, but it omits any mention of what happens on success or failure, whether the switch is immediate, or whether it returns any confirmation. Because there is no output schema, the description should specify the expected result but does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the command's effect.

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 the parameter fully ('UUID of the business context to switch to') with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter beyond confirming that the business context is being switched to. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'switch' and the target 'active business context,' and the parenthetical explains why this matters for checkout invoice generation. It distinguishes itself from read-only siblings like get_active_business by being a state-changing operation, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 hints at when to use it (to set the default for checkout invoices) but provides no guidance on when not to use it, nor does it compare to alternatives such as get_active_business or update_business. The agent must infer the appropriate context of use.

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