Switch Tenant

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

The description clearly discloses that the tool no longer changes the active organization and explains why (feature 030, credential scoped at sign-in). This goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) by providing historical context and the reason for the no-op behavior. It stops short of describing what the tool returns or whether it throws an error, but the core behavioral trait is well covered.

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 a single, focused paragraph that explains the deprecation and provides alternatives. While it includes some background detail (feature number), every sentence serves to prevent misuse. It is appropriately sized for a deprecated tool, though it could be slightly tightened by removing the parenthetical 'feature 030'.

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?

Given that the tool is essentially deprecated, the description covers the necessary context: it explains the change, tells the agent how to actually switch, and points to list_tenants. An output schema exists (unseen) which may describe return values, so the lack of return format details in the description is acceptable. It would be more complete if it explicitly stated 'this tool now does nothing' or described the effect of calling it.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter tenant_id, and the description never mentions it. The agent gets no insight into what this parameter is for, how it should be formatted, or whether it is still relevant given the tool's deprecated behavior. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 opens with 'Change which Okareo organization your session operates against' but immediately contradicts itself by stating 'This tool therefore no longer changes the active organization.' It never clearly states what the tool actually does when invoked now, leaving the agent uncertain whether it is a no-op, a read-only status check, or an error. This is not a tautology but is misleading about the tool's current function.

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 explicitly tells the agent to reconnect/re-authenticate the Okareo MCP to switch organizations and to use list_tenants to see the active organization. This provides clear exclusions and alternatives. However, it offers no guidance on when to actually call switch_tenant, making it more of a deprecation notice than a usage guide.

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