Switch the current engagement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it does important work: it reveals that switch_engagement is stateful and affects subsequent tools. This is a non-obvious behavioral consequence that an agent must know before invoking. It does not discuss scope, persistence, or failure behavior, but the core side effect is clearly disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the action first and then gives the crucial effect on downstream operations. Both language versions earn their place, and there is no redundant filler.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly: what it does and what consequences follow. No critical operational context is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about engagementId or lang beyond what the schema provides, so 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 uses a specific verb ('switch') and a clear resource ('current engagement'), then explains the consequence: later read and update tools operate on the newly selected engagement. This distinguishes it from sibling CRUD tools like get_engagement, update_engagement, and create_engagement.

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 clearly indicates that this tool changes the active context for subsequent operations, which tells an agent when it should be used: before a sequence of engagement-scoped reads/updates. It does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives, but the behavioral context is enough to avoid confusing it with get_engagement or list_engagements.

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