set_eval_pack_active

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals an ownership constraint ('your own') and a state-changing action, but it does not explain side effects, reversibility, or what 'active' means in terms of jobs or visibility. This is minimal but not misleading.

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?

A single, short sentence with no filler. The verb is front-loaded, and the ownership scope is included efficiently. Every word adds value.

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 setter with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and a key constraint. It lacks details about return values or consequences, but the tool's simplicity keeps this from being a major gap.

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 0%, and the description only implies parameter roles: packId is the eval pack, isActive controls the enabled state. It does not explicitly state which boolean value corresponds to enable/disable or provide any format details, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 a specific verb ('Enable or disable') and resource ('one of your own eval packs'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like publish_eval_pack and delete_eval_pack by focusing on toggling the active state of an existing pack.

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 phrase 'one of your own' provides clear context that the tool only operates on the user's own eval packs, differentiating it from other eval-pack tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full exclusivity guidance.

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