set_active_image

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full burden; it discloses that the call returns a status dict and that the image is brought to the front. It omits what happens with an invalid index, whether the operation is reversible (undo), and whether other images are affected.

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?

One-sentence purpose followed by a short parameter block and a return note — tightly structured with no filler. Every line adds information.

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 single-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter source, and return type, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Only error/failure behavior is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning; it explains that image_index identifies the image to activate and, usefully, that it comes from list_images. It does not state whether indices are zero-based or whether out-of-range values error.

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?

States a specific verb and object ('Raise a specific image to the front / make it active in GIMP'), which is concrete and unambiguous. It is implicitly distinct from sibling tools like list_images and close_image, though it does not name any alternative explicitly.

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 it (switching which image is the active target before further operations) and points the agent at list_images as the source of the index. It does not state when not to use it or mention any alternative tool for image targeting.

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