Developer accounts

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by explaining that API keys are bound to a single account and that all other tools implicitly operate on whichever account is active — the key operational consequence an agent must know. It also discloses the switch side effect, including the device-login branch (show the URL and code, then call gamealia_login with wait:true) and that list changes nothing, which complements rather than contradicts the supplied hints.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the operational constraint, then per-action detail. Dense but readable; the role enumeration ("owner, admin, developer or finance") is arguably more detail than an agent needs to pick the tool.

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 two-action tool with no output schema, this covers the identity/auth model, the side effect of switch, the follow-up call required after a device login, and the data returned by list. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

Every parameter is already documented at 100% coverage, so the schema baseline is 3. The description earns one more point by describing the outcome of each action — what list returns (id, name, individual/business, role, active flag, pending invites) and what switch does with a stored key versus a device login — rather than restating the enum.

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?

"Lists or switches the user's Gamealia developer accounts" is a specific verb+resource pair, and the parenthetical "their own and studios they joined" narrows the scope. It also establishes the distinguishing fact that every other tool acts on the active account, which implicitly separates it from gamealia_login and gamealia_whoami, though those siblings are never named.

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?

Gives a concrete decision rule for the 'before' case: when the user has several accounts, confirm the right one before creating or publishing games. The list-vs-switch split is spelled out. It stops short of naming alternatives or saying when this tool is not appropriate.

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