Switch the active project profile

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does well: it discloses the state-mutating effect (which profile the cli operates against), the prerequisite that the profile pre-exist, and the error condition when it doesn't. It stops short of describing persistence or side effects on in-flight sessions, so not a full 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then usage rationale, then prerequisites and return behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter, non-destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, alternatives, and return behavior ('confirmation, or an error'). Complete enough for correct invocation; only marginal behavioral detail is absent.

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% and the schema already documents the 'profile' parameter including the 'See config_show for valid names' pointer. The description restates the existence constraint without adding format or syntax detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Switch the active project profile') and goes further by naming the exact consumer ('the cli tool's commands operate against'). This distinguishes it from sibling config tools like config_show and config_remove without the agent needing to open any schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('move between already-connected projects without re-authenticating'), states the prerequisite ('profile must already exist'), names the creating alternatives ('projects_use' or 'login_direct'), and routes to config_show for valid names. Both usage context and alternatives are fully covered.

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