bc_switch_company

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses critical side effects: all currently open pages become invalid and must be re-opened, and all subsequent data operations target the new company. It also notes the exact-match requirement for companyName, adding operational detail beyond the action itself.

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 logically structured, starting with the core action, then side effects, prerequisites, and warnings. While longer than average, every sentence adds essential information for a state-changing tool, and the example makes parameter usage concrete.

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?

The description covers the operation's purpose, side effects on open pages, impact on subsequent tools, prerequisite verification step, and a caution against misusing it mid-workflow. Given the lack of an output schema, it sufficiently informs the agent about what to expect, though it stops short of detailing return values or error handling.

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 schema already documents companyName as an exact match with guidance to use bc_list_companies, so the description adds minimal new parameter-specific value. The example and reiteration of exact match provide slight reinforcement, but the high schema coverage keeps the baseline at 3.

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 action (switch to a different company within the current Business Central session) and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying that subsequent bc_open_page, bc_read_data, etc. will operate against the new company. It also mentions invalidation of open pages, which sets it apart from navigation tools.

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 explicitly instructs to use bc_list_companies first to verify the target company, and warns against switching mid-workflow, providing both positive and negative usage conditions. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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