proj_set_active_variant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies this as a mutation ('switch') and says a dictionary is returned, but it does not say whether the change persists, whether it requires an open project, what happens to open documents or other variants, or how failure is reported. For an unannotated mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a compact Args and Returns block. There is no filler, though the Returns line is redundant with the output schema and the docstring formatting is slightly boilerplate.

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 covers the parameters and acknowledges a return value, and an output schema exists so return details need not be spelled out. However, for a state-changing tool with no annotations it omits persistence, prerequisites, and error behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether it is safe to call.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: variant_name is explained as the variant to activate, and project_path is explained as optional with the important default that a null value falls back to the active project. Both parameters receive meaningful semantics beyond their bare titles, though no format or enum-like constraints are given.

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: 'Switch the active project variant'. That is clearly distinguishable from siblings like proj_get_active_variant, proj_list_variants, and proj_create_variant. It does not explicitly name those siblings, which keeps it from a 5, but the purpose 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus proj_get_active_variant, proj_list_variants, proj_create_variant, or proj_delete_variant. Nothing states prerequisites such as the project being open or the variant existing. The only usage hint is implied by the verb 'switch'.

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