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

Annotations already declare this is not read-only and not destructive, with idempotentHint true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: switching the active version affects downstream artifacts, and post-activation rescans may be required. This informs the agent about side effects and necessary follow-up actions.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action and parameter source are front-loaded, while the post-activation guidance is provided as a necessary caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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 activation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the source of valid IDs, the relationship to sibling tools, and the downstream consequences. The agent has everything needed to decide when and how to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema already fully describes script_id, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the lifecycle of version IDs: each generate_script run creates one, and save_script edits the active version in place. This helps the agent understand what the parameter refers to beyond the literal schema text.

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 and resource: 'Switch the project's active script to another saved version.' It distinguishes itself from related tools by explaining that generate_script creates versions and save_script edits the active version in place. The purpose is unambiguous and well differentiated.

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 explicitly tells the agent where version IDs come from ('ids come from get_script's version list'), how versions are created versus edited, and what to do after activation ('Re-run scan_script / rescan_voice_blocks afterwards if the text differs'). This provides clear usage context and routes the agent away from confusing it with generate_script or save_script.

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