bc_switch_company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fully discloses that all open pages are invalidated, pageContextIds become unusable, and subsequent operations target the new company. The mid-workflow warning adds critical behavioral context.

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 and well-structured: first the purpose, then behavioral effects, usage guidelines, and an example. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's impact (session state change), the description covers all necessary context: prerequisites (list companies), exact match requirement, effect on pages, and workflow restrictions. No output schema needed; the description is 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 coverage is 100% with a basic description. The description adds value by stating 'exact match', directing to use bc_list_companies, and providing an example. This goes beyond the schema's minimal description, though not dramatically so.

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 'Switch to a different company within the current Business Central session' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like bc_list_companies (which lists companies) and bc_open_page (which opens pages), making the tool's unique role clear.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: use bc_list_companies first, require exact match, and warns against switching mid-multi-step workflow. It also explains the effect on pages, offering clear alternatives and restrictions.

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