passgage_switch_to_company_mode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the action and a prerequisite, but does not disclose what 'switching to company mode' actually does (e.g., changes the API key used for subsequent requests, affects authentication state), nor what happens if the prerequisite is not met. Significant behavioral details are missing.

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, concise sentence that directly states the purpose and a key prerequisite. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is perfectly efficient for a zero-parameter tool.

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 is simple (no params, no output schema), so the description covers the basic functionality and a prerequisite. However, it does not explain what 'company mode' entails, the effect of switching, or how it differs from the sibling 'passgage_set_company_mode'. Given the large sibling list and the existence of a similarly named tool, the description is not fully complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly without confusion.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, the baseline is 4 since there are no parameters for the description to explain. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't introduce any.

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 a specific action ('Switch to company API key authentication mode') and resource (authentication mode). It also adds a prerequisite ('requires previous API key setup'), which clarifies the action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the very similar sibling tool 'passgage_set_company_mode', so there is some ambiguity.

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 mentions a key condition for use ('requires previous API key setup'), implying this tool should be used only after that setup. However, it does not mention any alternatives or explicitly state when to use this vs. the sibling 'passgage_set_company_mode' or 'passgage_switch_to_user_mode'. Usage context is only partially implied.

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