set_switch_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a non-obvious side effect: 'Grows the project's switch list if the id is past the end (padded to the editor's 20-slot block)' and explains that naming a switch 'makes it visible to the next session.' This is rich, useful context beyond what the schema or annotations provide.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value: the mutation effect, the id relationship, and the visibility tip. It avoids redundancy and remains easy to scan.

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 the low complexity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and usage guidance quite well. It doesn't explicitly mention return values or error conditions, but for a simple set operation, this is not a major gap. It is generally complete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 100%, but the description adds meaningful context to the switchId parameter by explaining that ids from next_free_id are always valid and how list growth/padding works. This goes beyond the schema's simple '1-based switch ID' definition, though it doesn't elaborate on name or dryRun beyond what the schema already states.

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 begins with 'Set a switch name,' a specific verb+resource statement that clearly identifies the action. It further elaborates on the behavior of growing the switch list, which distinguishes this tool from sibling set_* tools like set_variable_name or set_type_name by focusing on switches.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: 'an id from next_free_id can always be labelled' and 'Naming a switch as soon as you claim it.' It also references list_allocated_ids for related actions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for exclusion, so it falls short of a 5.

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