switch_to_student

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It says 'switch', implying a state change, but does not explain what that means for the session, whether it requires authentication, whether it is reversible, or what side effects it might have on subsequent calls. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like 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 in two concise sentences with no redundant or unnecessary wording. It starts with the primary action, then provides the essential parameter guidance, all in minimal space.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, none marked required, no output schema, and the description leaves the `subdomain` parameter undefined and no required parameter relationship. This means an agent could easily call it without any of the identifiers or with the wrong subdomain, and side-effect information is entirely absent in the absence of annotations. The definition is incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

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 description adds meaningful semantics for two of the three parameters: 'student_id' is clarified as `person_id`, and `name` is clarified as first/last/full name and the 'or' relation between them. However, it does not mention the 'subdomain' at all, nor the parameter combination rules, and the schema has 0% coverage, so the conceptual transformation is incomplete.

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 action: 'Switch to a student account' and restricts it to 'parent accounts only', which unambiguously identifies the target resource. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool 'switch_to_parent', so it does not fully differentiate itself from its inverse.

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 a clear usage condition: 'parent accounts only', and indicates how to identify the target ('Provide student_id (person_id) or name'). It lacks a when-not-to-use statement or mention of alternatives, but the condition provided is explicit enough for a basic invocation.

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