switch_terminal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=true. The description adds useful behavior by noting that the containing tab is activated and state is verified, but it does not explain the destructive implication flagged by the annotations or any side effects/permission requirements.

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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded and no redundant text. Every phrase contributes to the core behavior.

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?

Although an output schema exists and annotations supply safety hints, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool with destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. It says nothing about what is destroyed or changed beyond focus activation, invalid-session behavior, or permissions.

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 0%, and the sole parameter "session" is undocumented beyond its title. The description implies that the session corresponds to an explicitly selected terminal, but it adds no format, identifier, or constraint details needed to populate the parameter correctly.

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 uses a specific verb ("Activate") and resource ("terminal and its containing tab"), making the action clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as claim_terminal or read_terminal, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase "explicitly selected terminal" gives a minimal selection condition, but the description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like claim_terminal, read_terminal, or list_terminal_sessions. Usage is only implied.

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