account_use

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It notably reveals a key behavioral consequence: switching accounts releases the active notebook and that notebooks are not shared between accounts. This is valuable side-effect information beyond the basic action. It does not describe error conditions or return format, but for a simple selection tool, this is adequate.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides the parameter source and a critical side-effect. It earns its place with zero waste.

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 tool with one simple parameter and an output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the action, the parameter semantics, and a key side-effect. It doesn't elaborate on output, but the output schema covers that. It could mention error cases or prerequisites, but these are not critical for account selection.

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 has only a bare string parameter 'profile' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that profile is the name returned by account_list, giving the agent a clear source for the value. This is sufficient for a single parameter, though it lacks examples or format details.

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 a specific verb ('Elige') and resource ('cuenta'), clearly stating the action: selecting the account for the rest of the session. It also distinguishes itself from sibling account_list by referencing the profile name as the return value of account_list, establishing a clear relationship and differentiation.

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 for when to use this tool: when you need to switch to or select an account for the session. It also implicitly instructs to get the profile name from account_list. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the session-scoping and notebook side-effect give the agent practical guidance.

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