aiworkhub_repo_switch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses atomicity and that only a live manager-owned repo can be selected, but it omits permissions, persistence/reversibility, concurrency effects, and what state the switch actually mutates.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the operation class and key constraints are stated immediately. It is appropriately terse, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a state-changing 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?

Given a simple one-parameter mutation with no annotations and an available output schema, the description covers the core action and atomicity constraint. It still leaves prerequisites, authorization expectations, side effects, and when to prefer this over repo_current/repo_list unexplained.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented repo_id parameter. It adds a real semantic constraint by saying the value must be one live manager-owned repo_id, but provides no format, source, or example values, so compensation is only partial.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: an atomic switch to a manager-owned repo_id. The 'MANAGER OPERATION' qualifier and the live/manager-owned constraint distinguish it from read-only siblings such as repo_list and repo_current, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 'MANAGER OPERATION' prefix implies manager-context usage and rules out read-only listing, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative selection guidance. An agent can infer some context but must still guess the triggering condition relative to repo_current/repo_list.

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