baasix_switch_tenant

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Switch' weakly implies a state change, but the description does not disclose whether the switch affects subsequent operations, whether authentication is required, what happens on an invalid tenant ID, or whether the change persists. For a context-mutating operation, this is a significant gap.

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 wasted words. The size is appropriate for a one-parameter tool, though it could have packed in a pointer to get_user_tenants or a note on side effects without becoming bloated.

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?

Although the parameter surface is minimal, this is a stateful context-switching operation with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry more weight. It fails to explain where valid tenant IDs come from (get_user_tenants), what 'tenant context' affects, or what a successful or failed switch looks like. An agent lacks enough information to call it confidently.

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%, so the schema already documents tenant_Id as 'Tenant ID to switch to.' The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter—such as its format (e.g., UUID), where to obtain it, or constraints. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('switch') and resource ('tenant context'), and the intent is clear: change the active tenant for subsequent operations. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from sibling tenant-related tools like get_user_tenants or login, though it does not explicitly name what it is not.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_user_tenants should be consulted first to discover valid tenant IDs, nor does it explain that this tool changes the context for later calls. An agent is left to infer the invocation pattern entirely.

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