Switch TunnelHub Environment

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

Annotations provide key behavioral hints (non-readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's burden is lower. It adds context about affecting the 'current session,' which isn't covered by annotations, but doesn't elaborate on session-specific impacts, error conditions, or confirmation of success. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Switch the active TunnelHub environment') without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 tool's moderate complexity (session state change), annotations cover safety and idempotency well, but there's no output schema. The description lacks details on what happens after switching (e.g., confirmation message, error handling, or session persistence), leaving gaps in understanding the full behavior despite good annotations.

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%, with the single parameter 'environmentId' well-documented as a 'Target environment UUID.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the environmentId is used for switching, which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 target resource ('active TunnelHub environment for the current session'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_environments_tunnelhub' or 'current_session_tunnelhub', which would require mentioning this tool changes the active environment rather than just retrieving information.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to list environments first), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'list_environments_tunnelhub' (which might be needed to obtain environment IDs) or 'current_session_tunnelhub' (which might show the current environment).

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