switch_timeline

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks any behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this tool is destructive (e.g., closes unsaved work), requires specific permissions, or what happens if the named timeline does not exist. The tool changes the current timeline, but the description offers no insight into side effects.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler words. However, it is too brief for a tool with a single required parameter and no annotations. Important information is missing, and the brevity trades off against completeness.

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?

Given that the tool changes the active timeline and has an output schema (not shown), the description should mention what the tool returns or confirms success. It also lacks error handling context (e.g., if name does not exist). For a state-changing tool, this is inadequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but it does not. The only parameter 'name' is mentioned in the description as 'uniquely named', but no further details are given (e.g., case sensitivity, exact match, format). The schema only defines it as a string, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance for correct invocation.

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 clearly states the action: 'Make the uniquely named project timeline current.' It specifies a verb ('make current') and a resource ('project timeline'), and indicates that the timeline is identified by a unique name. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like 'current_timeline' or 'list_timelines', which might cause confusion about when to use this specific tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as ensuring the timeline exists or that the user is in the correct project. The sibling tools include many that could be related, but no distinctions are made.

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