fgui_switch_branch

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it states the effect is scoped to the editor's branch context only, and discloses a version-specific caveat about saves and asset creation not following the active branch. It does not describe whether the switch persists across sessions, what it returns, or how save_open_documents interacts with it.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the empty-string rule before the caveat. The second sentence is dense but each clause carries real information about scope limits.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the scoping caveat covers the biggest behavioral risk. Still, for a state-changing tool with zero annotations and 0% schema coverage, the silent save_open_documents parameter and the absence of any failure/permission behavior leave a noticeable gap.

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%, so the description must compensate — it does explain the 'name' parameter's empty-string convention, which is genuinely non-obvious. However, the second parameter save_open_documents is never mentioned, leaving half the parameter surface undocumented anywhere.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('切换活跃分支' / switch active branch) and immediately clarifies the edge case that name='' returns to trunk. It is clearly distinguishable from fgui_list_branches and fgui_create_branch by the word 'switch/active', though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

It gives the operative context for use (changing which branch the editor considers active) and a concrete exclusion — on device 6.1.4 this does not reroute document saves or asset creation, so Bridge writes must address the branch explicitly. It stops short of saying which sibling to call instead when the goal is listing or creating branches.

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