switch_account

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 does disclose the side effect (the account becomes active for future trades and analytics), which is useful, but says nothing about permissions required, reversibility, or what happens to the previously active account.

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 core purpose and effect are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the examples are compact. The example block is slightly redundant but plausibly useful for a non-technical user phrasing an account switch.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, effect, and input format. The main omissions are prerequisites/permissions and behavior toward the prior active account, which are minor for this tool's complexity.

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?

The single 'account' parameter has 100% schema description coverage including name/UUID formats, so the schema already does the work. The description's 'by name or ID' merely restates it, which matches the baseline 3 for fully documented schemas.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Switch the active trading account'), and clarifies the outcome ('Activates this account for future trades and overview analytics'). This separates it clearly from read-only siblings like get_active_account and get_accounts.

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 example questions imply when to use it, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of related siblings such as pause_account, resume_account, or freeze_trading that could otherwise be confused with account state changes.

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