set_active_level

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a generic 'switch level' by explaining that only the level's plan is shown and that new objects will belong to that level, which are meaningful side effects. It does not mention fit_view behavior, but the core state-changing semantics are clearly disclosed.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the behavioral consequences are packed efficiently into the second clause.

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 simple two-parameter command, the description covers the main action and its key side effects, and an output schema is present. However, it omits the meaning of 'fit_view' and does not address what happens to the current viewport or whether the operation is reversible, leaving a noticeable gap.

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 needed to compensate, but it only weakly implies that 'name' identifies the target level and says nothing about 'fit_view'. The schema provides no descriptions, and the description adds little semantic value for the parameters.

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 action ('Switch the drawing to a level') and a clear resource, then clarifies the effect: only that level's plan is shown and new objects belong to it. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_levels, create_level, and copy_level.

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 the tool should be used when changing the current active level, and the behavioral effects help clarify the intended use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_view or get_levels, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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