cc_switch_model

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'default allows all models, configurable to tighten' but does not explain side effects such as whether switching affects an active session, requires permissions, or involves any destructive actions. This is insufficient for a state-modifying tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. However, it sacrifices parameter details and usage context, meaning the brevity comes at the cost of completeness. It is concise but not optimally structured for agent consumption.

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 that there is no output schema and the tool modifies a session's model, the description should cover behavior, prerequisites, and failure scenarios. It lacks information on what constitutes a valid model, whether the session must be active, and what happens after switching. The description is incomplete for practical use.

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%, yet the description adds no explanation for any of the four parameters (model, confirm, session_id, allow_frontmost). The agent must rely solely on parameter names and types, which is inadequate for correct invocation.

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 switches the model for a managed Claude Code/Codex session, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cc_start_session or cc_focus_session. However, the title is null and the description is in Chinese, which may reduce clarity for non-Chinese-speaking agents, though it still provides a specific verb and resource.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, when not to use, or any context for the operation. It only states the general action, leaving the agent to infer when it is appropriate.

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