Switch Environment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'switch between environments' without stating whether this affects subsequent operations, is reversible, persists across sessions, or has side effects like modifying configuration files. It also doesn't mention the validation behavior (though the validate parameter hints at it) or what happens on failure. For a state-changing tool, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It names the two environments, which is essential context, and has no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's purpose and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete for an agent to use it correctly. It lacks critical context about how the switch affects the environment state, whether it is reversible, and how it relates to sibling tools like aws_query or aws_execute. The simple parameter set is documented, but the 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 (validate and environment) are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds the list of allowed environments, but the schema already includes that in the environment parameter description. The description does not add any extra meaning or usage hints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: switching between two named AWS environments (production or localstack). It uses a specific verb ('switch') and resource ('AWS environments'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like switch_account (which switches accounts, not environments) and list_environments (which lists, not switches). The two environment values are explicitly named, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like check_localstack, get_environment_info, and compare_environments, the agent is left to infer when switching is appropriate (e.g., before running aws_query or aws_execute). No mention of prerequisites, ordering, or situations where another tool should be used instead.

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