emacs_buffer_switch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It states the core side effect (the chosen buffer becomes current) but does not mention what happens if the buffer does not exist, whether the buffer must already be created, or whether an error is returned.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence states the action and the result with no filler.

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?

Adequate for a one-parameter state-change tool, but with no annotations or output schema it leaves unknown failure behavior (e.g., missing buffer) and does not clarify whether an exact buffer name is required. This is a gap an agent would have to learn by trial.

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 100%, so the description does not need to re-explain the buffer parameter. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the baseline for full coverage.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('switch to') and resource ('buffer') and clarifies the intended effect ('make it current'), so it is immediately distinguishable from sibling operations like emacs_buffer_read, emacs_buffer_list, or emacs_buffer_kill.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to choose this instead of related buffer tools such as emacs_buffer_read, emacs_buffer_edit, or emacs_buffer_create, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only context is the name and a terse definition.

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