x_switch_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait beyond the schema: the tool changes session state and verifies the resulting active account, which tells the agent the call has a side effect and a read-back. However, it omits error behavior for invalid handles, multi-account ambiguity, or what happens if the target account is not signed in.

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; the verb and mechanism come first and the verification clause follows. Slightly dense but every clause contributes.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the mechanism, and the post-condition ('verify the resulting active account state'), which implicitly describes the useful return information. Missing only failure-mode behavior, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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 100% for the single 'account' parameter, including the @-optional format, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no further detail about matching by handle versus label or how ambiguity is resolved, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Switch) and resource (X accounts) plus the mechanism (in-session account switcher) and the side effect (verifying resulting active account state). It is clearly distinct from read siblings like x_get_accounts, though it does not explicitly contrast with x_switch_account_and_act_task, which is the closest related tool.

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 phrase 'through the in-session account switcher' implies when this tool applies (session-scoped switching), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., being logged in), and no routing to alternatives such as x_switch_account_and_act_task versus x_get_accounts. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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