tc_switch

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

没有 annotations，描述承担了行为披露责任。它披露了 closed 任务会被拒绝这一重要行为，但没有说明切换时原活动任务是否被取消、是否持久化、失败时的返回形式等。仅有部分行为透明。

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?

描述非常简短，一句话内包含了核心操作和关键约束，没有冗余信息。虽然信息量偏少，但结构上做到了高效。

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?

对于只有两个参数的工具，描述提供了基本可用的信息，且存在 output schema 可补充返回结构。但缺少对“活动任务”概念的解释、切换的副作用以及 closed 状态如何判定，整体处于最低可用水平。

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 覆盖率为 100%，root 和 task_id 都已有说明，因此达到基线 3。描述本身没有为参数增加额外语义，例如 task_id 的格式或 root 的约束。

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?

描述明确说明了工具行为：切换活动任务，并补充了 closed 任务会被拒绝的限制。但与 tc_resume、tc_restore 等兄弟工具的差异没有明确说明，agent 仍需通过名称推断边界。

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?

描述没有说明何时使用本工具而非其他兄弟工具，也没有给出使用前提或替代方案。唯一的行为约束是 closed 任务会被拒绝，但这不足以指导 agent 在多个相似工具间做选择。

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