Activate Document

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: match priority (full path before file name), refusal behavior for ambiguous names (with candidates) and unknown names (with open-document list), and a headless quarantine restriction with escape routes. This is exactly the kind of extra context the lower bar for annotated tools rewards.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, then behavior, then edge cases. Mostly tight with zero wasted words. The trailing 'Pack: settings · lean: no.' is cryptic metadata that does not clearly help an agent select or call the tool.

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 one-parameter activation tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, name resolution, error cases, and the headless quarantine edge case. Return values are handled by the output schema, so nothing an agent needs 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 description coverage is 100% and there is one parameter, so the schema already documents the accepted value forms. The description goes further by specifying resolution order (full path first, then file name) and the failure modes tied to that parameter, adding meaning 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?

States a specific verb ('Make ... active') and resource ('one open document'), and explicitly names the observable result ('reports `previous`'). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like document_list, document_close, drawing_open, and drawing_new without opening any schema.

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 opening sentence provides clear context: use it to switch among already-open documents. The headless quarantine note adds an explicit when-not case with named alternatives (drawing_new, drawing_open, closing). However, it does not broadly route the agent to document_list for discovering valid names or distinguish the tool from drawing_open outside that edge case.

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