switch_model

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose the write behavior. It states the effect — persisting the model for subsequent searches — which communicates that this changes persistent state. However, it doesn't mention reversibility, permissions, or what happens if an invalid model is provided, leaving some gaps.

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 redundancy. It directly states the action and purpose, earning the highest score for conciseness.

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 is a simple setter with one parameter and 100% schema coverage, the one-sentence description is adequate. The existence of an output schema (not shown) also reduces the need to explain return values.

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 already documents the 'model' parameter with a description ('Grok model ID to persist'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond calling it 'primary', which is not a significant semantic addition.

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 uses the specific verb 'persist' and clearly identifies the resource (primary Grok model) and scope (subsequent searches). It distinguishes itself from sibling search/planning tools by focusing on model persistence.

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 this is for setting the model for future searches, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or list any exclusions. There is no mention of alternative tools, so the usage guidance is implicit.

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