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

While the annotations declare it as not destructive, the description provides specific behavioral context that is valuable—that the operation only affects the specified variant and guarantees the preservation of others. This goes beyond mere safety hints.

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 definition is extremely concise and well-structured. It front-loads the primary function and immediately follows it with the most important constraint, delivering maximum information with minimum word count.

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?

The description is highly complete for a state-setting tool, specifically addressing the crucial concern of asset preservation. Its only mild weakness is not specifying the expected return value, which is likely covered by the referenced output schema.

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 coverage is low (33%), and the description does not elaborate on the meaning or format of any specific parameter like 'projectId' or 'variantId'. Since the schema coverage is poor, the description does not provide the necessary compensation to raise the score.

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 provides a specific action ('Sets the project's active variant') tied to a resource ('the specified content type'). It is clearly defined and easily distinguishable from generic modification tools in the sibling list.

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?

It provides crucial usage guidance by explicitly stating a behavioral constraint: 'Does not delete or rewrite the other variants.' This tells the agent exactly what it *should* expect regarding side effects.

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