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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether the switch is persisted to the document, whether it affects subsequent drawing/export operations, or what happens if the artboard is missing.

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 short sentence with zero waste, but that brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than earned concision. Nothing is front-loaded beyond a bare restatement of the action.

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?

With no output schema and a 0%-documented parameter, the description should carry the burden of explaining accepted identifier forms and the effect on editor state. It does neither, leaving the agent to guess how to address the artboard.

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 0% and the single `artboard` parameter is typed as anyOf integer|string with no explanation. The description does not clarify whether an integer means an index and a string means a name/ID — the most important ambiguity for calling this tool correctly.

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: making an artboard the active one. An agent can understand the action without opening the schema. However, it gives no differentiation from plausible siblings such as `set_artboard` or `add_artboard`, which is a real ambiguity for a one-line description.

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 on when to use this versus `set_artboard` — a sibling whose name suggests strongly overlapping functionality — nor on prerequisites such as an open project or existing artboard. The agent must infer context entirely.

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