Activate change

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

Annotations only indicate that the operation is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: activating a change tags journal entries from mutating operations and makes the change the default for change tools. It also mentions the return value, going beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences deliver purpose, side effects, and return value with no filler. The key action is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 description is sufficient for a simple two-parameter tool: it explains the operation, its consequences, and the return value. It does not elaborate on error cases or the fate of a previously active change, but those are not essential for invoking the tool 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 100%, with both changeId and workspace clearly documented. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Make an existing change the active one.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like change_create (creation) and change_status (status reporting) by focusing on setting the active/default change, and it adds concrete behavioral effects.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when an existing change should become the active context for journal tagging and for change tools' default behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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