switch_to_parent

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing session effects, authentication requirements, and reversibility. 'Switch back' hints at a prior state but does not explain whether the switch mutates the session, whether it can be undone, or what occurs if invoked outside a parent session.

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 short sentence with no filler, which is concise. However, it repeats 'parent' in both the action and the parenthetical, and the ambiguous restriction reduces the clarity that strong conciseness should provide, so it is not a model of efficient structure.

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?

Although this is a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, it is an auth/session transition with a completely undocumented optional parameter. The description leaves critical context missing—parameter semantics, preconditions, and behavioral effects—so an agent cannot confidently invoke 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 contains one optional parameter, subdomain, with zero schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. The agent is given no information about what value to pass, why it is optional, or how it affects the switch, so parameter semantics are effectively absent.

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 identifies a specific action ('switch back') and resource ('parent account'), and the sibling list includes switch_to_student, making the directionality reasonably clear. However, the parenthetical 'parent accounts only' is ambiguous: it could mean only parent roles can call this, or that the tool operates only in a parent context, which prevents a 5.

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 provides no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as switch_to_student or login. It implies a return from a student context to a parent context, but it does not state preconditions, when not to use it, or which sibling covers the opposite direction.

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