bw_env_switch

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It reveals that login is deferred until a client is needed, existing sessions for other profiles are preserved, tool visibility can change based on read-only status, host support varies, and mutating calls are always rejected on read-only profiles.

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 deliver the purpose up front, followed by dense but relevant behavioral details. There is no filler, and every clause adds information an agent needs before invoking 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 one-parameter switch tool with exhaustive schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers persistence, timing of authentication, session handling, read-only enforcement, and host compatibility. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 100%, and the schema already explains that 'env' is a profile name from BW_PROFILES with an example. The description only repeats 'test → prod' and adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Switch') and resource ('active BW environment profile'), and immediately clarifies the effect: subsequent tools use the new profile. This makes it clearly distinct from siblings like bw_env_list and bw_disconnect.

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 gives clear context for when the tool matters: it changes the active profile for all later tools and notes the implications of read-only profiles. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is unambiguous given the parameter schema's pointer to bw_env_list.

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