config_use

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It clearly explains the effect (switches the active profile for the cli tool), the prerequisite (profile must exist), and the outcome (confirmation or error if missing). It also mentions the non-destructive nature by noting no re-authentication needed, which implies safety.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and scope, then provides usage guidance and error handling. Every sentence adds distinct value.

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 description is complete for this simple one-parameter tool. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, prerequisites (profile must exist), how to find valid profiles (config_show), and what the output is (confirmation or error). No output schema is needed because the return is simple text described.

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 covers the single parameter 'profile' with a description, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description repeats the same parameter semantics ('must already exist', 'see config_show') but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3.

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 the verb 'Switch' and the resource 'active project profile'. It distinguishes from similar tools by noting it moves between already-connected projects without re-authenticating, and explicitly references the 'cli' tool and related commands like config_show and projects_use.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'to move between already-connected projects without re-authenticating'. It also states when not to use by emphasizing the profile must already exist, and directs the agent to run config_show to see available names. This provides clear usage context and alternatives.

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