tg_account_use

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the switch is session-only and does not affect other clients or the watcher. This is good contextual transparency, though it could mention error behavior or default reset beyond the 'main' hint.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary behavior, and no wasted words. The second sentence adds necessary scope clarification without bloat.

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 simple one-parameter setter with an output schema, the description is complete: it explains the effect, persistence, and exclusions. The session scope is clearly defined, and the 'main' default covers the common use case.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by giving a concrete example ('main' for the default account), adding meaning beyond the raw schema property. It does not enumerate all possible account values, but the tool name and context imply they are account identifiers.

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 action: pointing every following tool call at a specified account. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a session-scoped context setter, with a clear resource (the active account).

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?

It implies when to use (before making tool calls that should target a specific account) and when not (the background watcher is unaffected). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions beyond the watcher note.

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