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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true / destructiveHint=false, so the description adds real value by disclosing the session-level side effect ('clears the active site') and the authorization requirement ('Admin or tenant owner/editor only'). This is exactly the kind of context the annotations do not carry.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and zero filler. The three distinct facts (action, side effect, permissions) are packed into one sentence with a parenthetical, which is slightly dense but still readable.

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 selection tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, its downstream effect, the session state it replaces, and the permission gate. Only the relationship to select_site is left implicit, which keeps it short of fully complete.

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 100% and the single 'slug' parameter is already documented as 'Template slug to set as active'. The description adds no format, constraint, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Make a template the edit target for this session') and immediately explains the consequence for downstream tools. An agent can distinguish this from select_site, list_templates, and pull_template without opening any schema.

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?

'editing tools then act on it' implies the workflow context in which this tool matters, and the permission clause narrows who can call it. However, it never states when to choose this over the closely related select_site, and no explicit exclusions or alternatives are named.

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