Switch the active chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait: switching the active chat state, and the consequence that send_prompt targets the active chat. However, it does not mention return values, whether the operation is reversible, or any error/validation behavior, which are gaps for a state-changing 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It is concise and adds meaningful context without repetition or 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?

For a simple two-parameter switch tool, the description is largely complete: it explains the purpose, the relation to send_prompt, and the project context. It does not explain how to get the IDs, but with sibling list_chats and list_projects, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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%, and the description provides no parameter-specific details. While chatId and projectId are self-explanatory from their names, the description does not explain where to obtain these IDs, their format, or how they relate to list_chats/list_projects, so it fails to compensate for the lack of structured parameter descriptions.

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's verb ('Make a different chat thread active'), resource ('chat thread'), and scope ('in a project'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referencing send_prompt's behavior, making it clear this is a targeting/selection tool rather than a list/delete/read operation.

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 usage context: send_prompt always posts into the active chat, so use switch_chat to aim at the right conversation. It effectively names the primary alternative (send_prompt) and the rationale, but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or list other alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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