switch_incarnation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing potential side effects, reversibility, authentication requirements, or whether the switch disrupts ongoing operations.

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, direct sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Despite the output schema and simple parameter set, the description lacks essential context about the consequences of switching, when it should be invoked, and how it relates to the get/list incarnation tools. The description is too minimal for a state-changing operation.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to 'incarnation_type', but the schema already provides a clear title and description, so no deduction is warranted.

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') on a specific resource ('server') to a different 'incarnation', which distinguishes it from sibling read-only tools like get_current_incarnation and list_incarnations. However, it does not elaborate on what an incarnation is or the implications of switching.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_current_incarnation or list_incarnations. There is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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