set_active_sequence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that setting the active sequence affects all other tools, which is important for an agent to know. It does not mention error handling or return values, but for a simple setter, this is sufficient. It goes beyond the schema by explaining the global effect.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence adds the matching method and the effect on other tools. There is no wasted wording; 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential context: what it does, how to identify the sequence, and the impact on other tools. It omits details like return behavior or error cases, but those are not critical for a simple state-setter. It is complete enough for an agent to use 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 already describes the parameter as 'Sequence name or ID' (100% coverage). The description's phrase "Match by name or sequence ID" adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: "Make a sequence the active one" with a specific verb and resource. It also explains the consequence ("so every other tool operates on it"), which distinguishes it from any sibling tool. No other sibling has a similar purpose, so it is unambiguous.

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 the tool: it is the tool that sets the target for all subsequent operations. It implies usage (before operating on a specific sequence) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. Since no sibling tool serves this role, the lack of explicit alternatives is acceptable.

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