Change active employer

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

The description adds a behavioral detail not present in the annotations: it never authenticates. This helps set expectations about side effects. However, it does not explicitly mention that it changes the active employer state, though this is implied by the tool name. The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are not contradicted.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundant information. The description is clear and to the point, effectively conveying the tool's purpose and a key behavioral note.

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 description is adequate for a simple selection operation. It does not specify output/return values, but this is not typically critical for a mutating action. The lack of an output schema is acceptable, and the description covers the primary purpose and parameter format. Minor gap: does not mention any error cases or side effects beyond authentication.

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?

Even though the schema provides no description for the 'employer' parameter, the tool description explicitly explains that it can be specified by nickname or accountNo:branch. This fully covers the parameter's meaning and format, exceeding the schema's minimal definition (type string, minLength 1).

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: selecting a locally cached employer by nickname or accountNo:branch. The verb 'Select' combined with the tool name 'change_active_employer' unambiguously indicates setting the active employer, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_active_employer or refresh_employers.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the 'Never authenticates' note provides a useful constraint that signals this is a lightweight local operation. The purpose is clear enough from the name and description for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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