variant_set_active

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

The annotation 'destructiveHint: true' already indicates a mutating operation. The description adds no further behavioral details, such as what happens after setting the active variant, whether it can be undone, or what downstream operations are affected. It does not contradict annotations.

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 sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified. While brevity is good, the lack of detail means it does not serve as an effective standalone explanation. It is concise but sacrifices necessary content.

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?

The tool has a destructive annotation and an output schema, but the description does not cover parameter meaning or usage context. For a simple setter, the missing 'name' semantics and lack of guidance about the impact on the design make the description incomplete for proper invocation.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter 'name' with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what 'name' refers to (e.g., variant name from variant_list), its format, or that it must correspond to an existing variant. The description provides no compensating information.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('active design variant') with scope ('current project'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like variant_create, variant_list, and variant_set_component_override. It unambiguously states what the tool does.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or relationships to other variant tools. The agent has no context for appropriate selection beyond the tool name and sibling list.

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