jumpcloud_user_token_set_active

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses 'Mutating token selection' and 'Risk: medium,' which indicates a write operation with some risk. However, it fails to explain side effects, permissions required, whether the change is reversible, or what happens to the previously active token. The minimal risk label helps but leaves significant behavioral unknowns for a mutation tool.

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 concise, consisting of three short sentences. The first sentence is a bit vague ('Mutating token selection'), but the second clarifies the actual purpose. 'Risk: medium' is a useful label. Overall, it is compact and front-loaded, though the first sentence could be more informative and the structure is slightly disjointed.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers the basic action and a no-go case, omitting details on parameter usage, prerequisites, return values, error conditions, or operational context. This is far too incomplete for a mutation tool of this complexity, especially with zero schema parameter descriptions.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its parameters, and the tool description provides no parameter details. It mentions 'user' and 'token' but doesn't explain what userId, tokenId, tenantId, or authorizationKey mean or how they should be provided. With zero coverage from both schema and description, the agent is left guessing about parameter semantics. This is a critical gap.

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 changes the active token for a user, using the specific phrase 'change active token for a user.' It also distinguishes from token creation by saying 'Do not use to create tokens,' which helps avoid confusion with sibling tools like jumpcloud_user_token_upsert. However, it stops short of naming the exact alternative tool, so it's slightly less explicit than the high benchmark.

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 a clear use case: 'Use to change active token for a user.' It explicitly states when NOT to use it: 'Do not use to create tokens.' This gives the agent exclusionary guidance, though it doesn't mention other alternatives (e.g., list/delete). This is solid guidance but could be more comprehensive by referencing sibling tools.

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