bookmind.select_company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently states that the tool switches the active company and returns company info. While it does not discuss side effects like invalidating caches or permission requirements, the behavior is simple and the disclosure is adequate.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the primary action and purpose. No extraneous information. Every sentence adds 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, the expected input, and the output type. It is complete for effective usage.

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?

There is one parameter (company_id) with schema description coverage at 100%. The description adds extra meaning by explaining how to obtain valid IDs via list_companies and notes the special value 'default' for single-company mode, which goes beyond the JSON schema definition.

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 action ('Switch between connected QuickBooks companies') and resource, and it specifies what it does ('Sets the active company for all subsequent operations. Returns the current company info.'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bookmind.anomalies or bookmind.categorize.

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 implicitly indicates that this tool should be used before other operations that depend on the active company, and the parameter description explicitly suggests using bookmind.list_companies to find company IDs. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or list alternatives.

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