outlook_switch_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the validation source for the name argument, but omits the behavioral detail that matters for a session-state mutation: that it changes the active account for subsequent calls and what happens on an invalid name.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the prerequisite trailing as a parenthetical. Zero filler; every clause carries information.

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 state-switching tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the action, the argument's provenance, and the valid-value source. The only meaningful omission is the scope of the switch (whether it persists across calls and which subsystems it affects).

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%, so the description carries the burden for the single parameter. It does so well by defining `name` as a *configured* account name retrievable via outlook_list_accounts, which tells the agent the value is a pre-registered identifier rather than an arbitrary string or email address.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Switch the active Outlook account' tells the agent exactly what changes, and the parenthetical points to outlook_list_accounts as the source of valid values. No sibling performs account switching, so differentiation is inherent, though the description does not state that the switch affects the account used by subsequent calls.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the parenthetical prerequisite (get `name` from outlook_list_accounts), which is a useful sequencing hint. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no mention of what to do when the name is unknown or when a switch should be avoided (e.g., mid-request workflows).

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