set_active_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, but it only describes the file's provenance and update behavior. It does not state whether the path is validated, whether the previous active file is replaced, or what happens if the file does not exist.

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 short and front-loaded with the action; the second paragraph adds relevant context about file location and freshness rather than padding. Slightly more detail on the parameter would be welcome, but structure is clean.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations and no parameter help, the description is incomplete: it never explains that this file becomes the active context for other Lightwright tools or how the 'watcher' behaves. The output schema covers return values, but the active-file workflow is left implicit.

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 description never mentions the required 'path' parameter directly. The file background helps infer that path should point to the Lightwright XML, but the description does not explain path format, absolute vs relative, or that it is mandatory.

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 opens with a concrete action, 'Point the watcher at a Lightwright Data Exchange XML file,' naming the resource and making clear this is a setter rather than get_active_file. It could be more explicit about setting the active file used by subsequent tools, since 'watcher' is unexplained.

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 implies the intended use by explaining what the XML file is and when Vectorworks updates it, but it never states when to prefer set_active_file over sibling tools or that it should be called before operations like list_plots. This is clear context without explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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