activate_document

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

The description adds a genuine prerequisite beyond the annotations: existing documents require allow_edit=true before modeling, which is meaningful operational context. But annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false while the description never explains what is destroyed (e.g., unsaved changes in the previously active document) or why re-activation is non-idempotent — the highest-risk behavior of this tool is left unexplained.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed immediately by the practical constraint. No filler; the only weakness is that the brevity comes at the cost of missing safety-relevant detail.

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 two-parameter tool this covers the basic call pattern, and no output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, given destructiveHint=true, the absence of any statement about what state is affected or overwritten leaves a real gap in what an agent needs to call this safely.

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 carries the burden. It successfully explains allow_edit semantics (must be true for existing documents, default false), but leaves "title" ambiguous — document display title versus filename or path is not clarified, which matters for targeting the correct document.

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?

"Explicitly target an open document" names a verb (target/activate) and resource (document), so the general intent is inferrable, but "target" is vague about what activation actually does (sets an active editing context?) and the description never distinguishes this from siblings like open_part, new_part, or list_documents.

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 clause "before modeling" implies the tool is a precursor step to feature operations, and the allow_edit note implies a checkpoint before editing existing documents. However, no alternative is named (e.g., when to call this versus open_part or new_part), and no explicit when-not-to-use case is given.

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