switch_model

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Switch' which implies a state change, but it does not explain consequences such as whether existing conversations are affected, whether the change is persistent, or any required permissions. This is a minimal disclosure, similar to the update_drive example.

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, focused sentence with no filler or redundancy. It communicates the core action and target resource efficiently. The structure is appropriately short for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse to be contextually complete. It does not explain the optional conversationId behavior, the default vs. per-conversation distinction, or potential side effects. An agent relying solely on this description may not invoke the tool correctly without examining the schema.

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 coverage is 100% (both modelId and conversationId have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics—it does not elaborate on modelId or conversationId beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, no extra credit beyond baseline.

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') and the resource ('active AI model for conversations'), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_models or get_model. However, it lacks explicit scope clarification (e.g., per-conversation vs. default), which the schema must provide. It is clear but not as strong as a description that names alternatives or exclusions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that setting conversationId changes a specific conversation while omitting it changes the default, nor does it indicate any prerequisites or side effects. The description leaves usage context to the schema, which is insufficient.

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