switch_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool changes the current schema and is only available under a specific configuration. It does not clarify the scope of the change, persistence, or error behavior, leaving some ambiguity.

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 concise sentence with a useful parenthetical constraint. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, though it could add a bit more practical guidance without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description does not explain how to determine valid schema names, what happens to subsequent operations, or how to verify the switch succeeded. A bit more context would be needed for an agent to use it confidently.

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 0%, and the description adds little beyond the schema property name. The parameter's meaning (the target schema name) is implied, but there is no guidance on allowed values, formatting, or how to discover valid schemas.

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 a specific action (switch) and a specific resource (the current operation's SCHEMA), and includes a configuration-based availability condition. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_current_schema, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies that this tool is used to change the active schema for subsequent operations, and it gives a prerequisite (DAMENG_ALLOWED_SCHEMAS must be configured). However, it does not mention when to prefer this over related tools or explain the effect on later calls.

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