iyke_project_set_active

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that panes are not navigated, that existing queries refetch automatically, and that the tool fails on unknown/archived ids. The term 'phase-2/6-aware surface' is unclear but adds nuance.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. The core action is in the first sentence, followed by effects and limitations. Efficiently front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description covers changes, side effects, and failure. It does not describe the return value on success, but the tool is simple enough that this is acceptable. Distinguishes well among many sibling tools.

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 100% with param description 'Slug of an existing, non-archived project.' The tool description reinforces this and adds behavioral context (fails if unknown/archived), going beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Switch' and the resource 'the shell's active project'. It specifies what the change affects (new chats, scratchpads, todos, pkg installs) and distinguishes from sibling tools like iyke_project_get_active by focusing on setting rather than getting.

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 provides clear context: when to use (to change active project), what happens after (refetch, defaults), and failure conditions (unknown/archived id). It does not explicitly name alternatives like iyke_project_get_active but implies the use case.

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