switch_xcode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency, but it provides only the basic action without disclosing side effects, prerequisites, or what happens when no arguments are provided. The parameter description mentions that installations will be listed if xcodePath is omitted, but this is in the schema, not the main description, and does not cover the tool's overall behavior or consequences.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is somewhat minimal and does not add much beyond the tool name, though it does specify 'active Xcode version' which adds a bit of context.

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?

For a tool that changes global state (switching Xcode version), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'active' means, how to verify the change, what happens with no arguments, or what the tool returns. There is no output schema and no additional context, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's full behavior.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The main description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as how the version and xcodePath interact. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description does not need to repeat schema info.

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 tool's function: 'Switch the active Xcode version'—a specific verb ('Switch') and resource ('active Xcode version'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_xcode_info and build_project, which have different purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_xcode_info could be used to check the current version, or any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is purely implied by the tool name.

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