Switch Specialist Context

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

Annotations already provide safety signals (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds valuable context beyond these: that this is a context switch (not a personnel action) and that it involves loading a 'clean brief' for the next slice of work. No contradictions are present.

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 two sentences: the first states the action and gives concrete examples, the second clarifies the non-personnel nature and purpose. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 context-switch tool with strong annotations and a fully described schema, the description is complete: it defines the purpose, examples, and the key distinction from a personnel handoff. While it doesn't detail the return value, that is acceptable since there is no output schema and the tool is a simple state-change operation.

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%, with each parameter already documented in detail (e.g., to_role and from_role have long explanations and examples). The description's role examples (ARCH→FE) add marginal context but do not meaningfully augment what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Switch'), the resource ('agent's specialist context'), and the direction ('from one specialty to another') with concrete examples (ARCH→FE, DE→AI, OPS→SRE). It explicitly distinguishes itself from a personnel handoff, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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 indicates when to use the tool: when switching the agent's specialty context to apply the right skills and quality bars. It explicitly states 'Not a personnel handoff' to prevent misuse. However, it does not directly compare to sibling tools like workforce_as or workforce_specialize, leaving some room for ambiguity about alternatives.

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