Select TraeCN Conversation

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

Annotations are all false, providing no safety or idempotency signals, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool modifies state (makes active) and returns a confirmed identity, implying validation. This exceeds what annotations offer and gives useful behavioral context, though it stops short of describing error cases or side effects on other conversations.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and context, and the second states the return value. Every word contributes to understanding, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 simple selection tool with one parameter and an output schema (present), the description is largely complete: it states the action, the context, and the return. It implies the conversation must exist and gives confirmation behavior. It could mention failure modes or side effects, but for this complexity level it covers the essentials an agent needs to call it 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?

The schema covers the single parameter fully with a clear description ('Stable identifier returned by traecn_list_conversations'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, but none is needed given the high coverage. The description's reference to 'existing conversation' reinforces the constraint without adding syntax details.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Make one existing conversation the active target for subsequent visible interaction.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like traecn_delete_conversation or traecn_list_conversations by focusing on selection. The mention of 'subsequent visible interaction' adds context that this is a prerequisite for interactive actions, and the return statement clarifies the tool's output.

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 context for when to use it: to set the active conversation for future interactions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident and aligns with sibling selection tools like traecn_select_model. The phrase 'existing conversation' implies a prerequisite, offering implicit guidance on when it's applicable.

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