Activar un proyecto local

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: activating a project affects where new log entries are created and their default values. However, it does not mention whether this action is reversible, if it has side effects on existing entries, or if it requires specific permissions. The description adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive transparency.

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 and front-loaded: it states the primary action in the first sentence and adds a brief consequence in the second. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose and the main behavioral consequence (new log entries are created within the active project). However, it could be more complete by mentioning whether the activation is persistent, if there is a way to deactivate, or if there are any prerequisites. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 description coverage is 100% (the 'id' parameter is described as 'Id del proyecto local a activar'). The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but since the schema already covers the single parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not explain the format or constraints of the id, but the schema's description is sufficient.

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's purpose: 'Marca un proyecto local como activo' (Marks a local project as active). It specifies the resource (local project) and the action (mark as active), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like project_create, project_delete, and project_list by focusing on the activation state rather than CRUD operations.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you want to set a project as active so that new hours (log_entry) are created within it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context about log_entry creation provides some usage context, but it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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