ck_worktree_switch

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveness (destructiveHint=true). The description adds the side effect of updating session metadata but does not elaborate on what exactly is updated, reversibility, or impact on other sessions.

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?

Single sentence, 12 words, directly states the purpose and side effect. No redundant or irrelevant information.

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 covers core functionality but lacks context on error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., git repository, worktree existence), and recovery. Output schema exists but description does not leverage it. Missing guidance on using sibling ck_worktree_list to find worktrees.

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 50% (only session_id has a description). The description does not add information about parameters beyond implying worktree_path is the target. No additional meaning provided for session_id or worktree_path.

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 'current session to a different git worktree', distinguishing it from siblings like ck_worktree_list which lists worktrees. The action is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage when switching worktrees is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to avoid it, prerequisites (e.g., git repository, existing worktree), or alternatives among siblings.

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