switch_environment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the blast radius (all SAP tools), session scoping, the _sap_env marker on non-prod answers, and the instruction never to present non-prod data as live books. It also notes that re-selecting the same env reloads the login. It omits validation/error behavior and whether the switch is reversible or persisted.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The phrasing is telegraphic ('Same env = reload login'), which is compact but costs a little readability.

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 explained, and the description covers the essentials an agent needs: scope, accepted values, and the non-prod data caveat. Gaps remain around invalid-input handling and the interaction with sap_login, but they are minor for a one-parameter switch.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no enum, so the description compensates by enumerating accepted forms: prod, dev, production, development, test, and SID. That is real added meaning beyond the bare string type. It does not specify case sensitivity or what a SID string looks like.

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 action and scope: 'Point all SAP tools at prod or dev ... for this session.' That clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_environments (which reads) and sap_login (which authenticates). It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'for this session' and the accepted value list, so an agent can infer this is a session-scoped switch. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of how this relates to list_environments or sap_login, and no statement about what happens on an invalid value.

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