switch_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention that switching likely sets a current project context affecting subsequent tool calls, nor does it describe any side effects, permission requirements, or failure modes. The description is a bare phrase with no added 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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and immediately states the core action.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic action but omits important context such as whether the project must already exist, how it affects the current session, or what the result is. It is minimally viable but lacks enough detail for an agent to fully anticipate the tool'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 schema already describes the single parameter 'project' as 'Target project ID to switch to', which is clear and complete. The description adds no significant meaning beyond the schema, so with 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 'Switch to a different project' uses a specific verb ('switch') and resource ('project'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_projects, setup_project, or update_project. However, it does not explicitly state that it changes the current working context, leaving slight ambiguity about what 'switch' means in practice.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as setup_project or update_project. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the target project must exist) or typical scenarios, leaving the agent without decision support.

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