set_active_schema

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it writes to config.toml, triggers in-process reload (ADR 19), does not mutate tasks, and returns 'code="dry_run"' for dry runs (ADR 14). Authorization context (CONTRIBUTOR level) is provided.

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 well-structured, starting with the main purpose, then detailing parameters, dry-run usage, side effects, and authorization. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value, and it avoids redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter distinction, validation mode, side effects (config update, reload, no task mutation), authorization, and relevant ADRs. It is complete for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explains each parameter: 'schema_name' is a bundled preset, 'schema_path' is an absolute path to TOML, and 'dry_run' is a boolean for validation. It adds context like 'such as 'minimal'/'gtd'/'kanban'/'scrum'' and usability tips. It does not detail error handling for missing inputs, but the requirement 'exactly one must be provided' is clear.

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 tool's action: 'Switch the active task schema.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'use_preset_schema' by specifying both preset names and custom paths, and explicitly requires exactly one of 'schema_name' or 'schema_path'.

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 clear usage guidance: exactly one of two parameters must be provided, 'dry_run=true' is recommended for validation, and it mentions the authorization level (CONTRIBUTOR and above). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like 'use_preset_schema', but the context is sufficient.

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