switch_model

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently mentions the setting persists to a config file, has immediate effect, and that invalid models can cause later errors. It does not detail any destructive side effects (there are none expected) but covers the key behavioral traits an agent would need to know.

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 well-structured with a leading summary, key features, and edge cases. It front-loads the core purpose and organizes supplementary info clearly. It could be slightly more concise (e.g., the 'Key Features' bullet 'Immediate Effect' somewhat repeats persistence info) but remains efficient and scannable.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thorough. It covers the operation's purpose, persistence, immediate effect, verification advice, and failure mode. An agent would have everything needed to call it correctly and understand the consequences, so completeness is high.

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 parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds general context about what the model affects (search and fetch) but does not provide additional details beyond the schema's already thorough example values. Per the baseline rule, a 3 is appropriate when the schema handles the load.

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 clear action: 'Switches the default Grok model used for search and fetch operations, persisting the setting.' It names the specific resource (default Grok model) and the domain (search and fetch), which clearly distinguishes it from operational tools like web_search or web_fetch. Even without naming a specific sibling, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicit 'Edge Cases & Best Practices' including 'Use get_config_info to verify available models before switching.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and suggests an alternative for verification. It also warns about invalid model IDs causing API errors and notes persistence across sessions, giving clear practical guidance.

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