set_active_document

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is already carried structurally. The description adds useful context (it retargets subsequent tool calls and does not open files), but it never reconciles the 'destructive' annotation — a mere context switch reads as benign/reversible, so the agent gets no explanation of what is actually destructive or whether the change is reversible.

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?

Four tight segments — purpose, when-to-use, parameter semantics, example — front-loaded and each earning its place. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 one-parameter state-switch tool with an output schema present (so return values need not be documented) and full annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter format. Only the failure behavior for an unmatched name is missing.

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 0% and the single parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It states the type (str), that the value may be a bare name or a full path, that matching is case-insensitive, and gives a concrete example — strong compensation, though it doesn't say what error occurs when no matching open drawing exists.

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 ('torna ativo') and resource (an already-open drawing identified by name or path), and explicitly distinguishes itself from openers ('Não abre arquivos novos'). An agent can differentiate it from siblings like list_documents, save_document, and dxf_create 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?

Contains an explicit 'QUANDO USAR' clause naming the exact scenario (to switch the target drawing of the other tools) plus a clear exclusion ('não abre arquivos novos'). This is textbook when-to-use guidance.

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