auth_switch_tenant

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that switching acquires a new token to verify access and rolls back on failure. This is useful side-effect and failure semantics. It stops short of mentioning broader impact on cached tokens or subsequent tool calls, but the rollback detail is meaningful.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The main operation is front-loaded, and the behavioral detail is placed directly after it, making the definition easy to scan and parse.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the action, the verification behavior, and rollback safety. A minor gap is that it does not describe what the caller should expect on success or how the switch affects future sibling tool calls, but the low complexity and clear schema reduce the risk.

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%, and the tenantId parameter is already documented as 'The Azure AD tenant ID (GUID) to switch to.' The description does not need to add parameter-level details and does not provide any 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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Switch to a different Azure tenant.' It also adds unique behavioral detail (acquiring a new token and rolling back on failure) that clearly distinguishes this from the sibling auth tools like auth_get_current_account and auth_clear_token_cache.

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 phrase 'Switch to a different Azure tenant' provides clear context for when the tool applies: when the current tenant must be changed. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool performs this same tenant-switching function, so the implied usage is straightforward.

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