context-set_active

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only restates the schema's select parameter ('optionally select it') and does not disclose side effects like whether previous selections are cleared, whether the object must already exist, or any other contextual behavior changes.

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 a single, short, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and optional parameter. No wasted words or redundant elaboration.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter semantics, the description is too sparse for an agent to understand all relevant behavior. While the tool is simple, absence of prerequisites, side effects, or object identifier details leaves important gaps for reliable invocation.

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, but it adds little beyond paraphrasing the schema titles: 'Object to make active' and 'Also select the object'. It does not clarify the expected format of the object string (e.g., name, path, or ID) or the consequences of the select parameter beyond the schema default.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and clear resource ('the active object'), and mentions the optional selection behavior, making the core action unambiguous. It partially distinguishes itself from sibling tools like context-select_objects by emphasizing 'active' versus selection, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as context-select_objects or context-select_all. The intended use is only implied by the phrase 'active object' and the sibling tool names, offering no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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