set_active_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool sets the active profile ID but doesn't explain what this means operationally—e.g., whether it persists across sessions, affects other tools' behavior, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like invalidating cached data. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, error conditions, return values, and how it integrates with sibling tools (e.g., 'get_active_profile'). For a tool that likely changes system state, this is inadequate to guide an agent effectively.

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 description mentions 'profile_id' implicitly, but with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, it adds minimal value beyond what the schema already indicates (a required string). It doesn't clarify what a profile ID is, where to get it, or its format (e.g., numeric, UUID). The baseline is 4 for zero parameters, but here it's 3 due to the single undocumented parameter with no added semantics.

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 ('Set') and the resource ('active profile ID for API calls'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'set_active_identity', which has a similar naming pattern and likely serves a related but different purpose in the context of identity/profile management.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid profile ID from 'ac_listProfiles' or 'ac_getProfileById'), when not to use it, or how it relates to siblings like 'set_active_identity' or 'clear_active_profile'. This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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