switch the sync organization

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

Annotations only say it is non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world; the description adds the crucial session-persistence behavior, that paid generations are affected, and that the switch lasts until session end or another switch. It also discloses the access model (Sync app connections limited to organizations ticked at connect time, reconnect error message, API keys bound to one organization and unable to switch), which is exactly the failure mode an agent needs to anticipate.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its persistent scope, then the id source, then the access caveats, then the single-generation alternative. It is dense with four clauses of caveats, but each sentence carries distinct information; minor trimming of the reconnect wording would make it tighter.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be detailed, and the description still previews them briefly (plan, generation limits, feature flags). Combined with the session-scope and auth constraints, an agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to interpret a refusal.

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% and the schema already says the id comes from organizations_list, so the description largely restates that. It does reinforce that the value must originate from organizations_list rather than being constructed, but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Switch this session to another Sync organization') plus the exact scope of the effect ('every later call runs there'). This clearly separates it from organizations_list (read-only enumeration) and from per-call organizationId overrides, which are 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?

Gives an explicit when: only when the user asks to work in that organization, and requires an id sourced from organizations_list. It also gives the when-not and the alternative: 'To run a single generation elsewhere, pass organizationId on that create instead.'

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