set_current_timeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether activation persists, what happens on an invalid name/index, or which parameter wins if both are given. 'Activate' implies a state change but none of its side effects or failure modes are described.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the key selection modes front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately terse, though the terseness leaves the gaps above unaddressed.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage on two optional params, this mutation-style tool needs considerably more detail than one line to be called confidently.

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% and both parameters are optional, yet the description only adds the useful '1-based' detail for index. It never resolves the critical ambiguity of mutual exclusivity or what happens when both name and index are supplied or omitted.

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 ('Activate') and resource ('timeline') plus the two ways to select one. It is distinguishable from create_timeline and get_timelines, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 statement of when to prefer this over create_timeline or get_timelines, and no prerequisite noted (e.g. that the project must be open or the timeline must already exist). At best the 'by name or index' phrasing weakly implies you should already know the identifier.

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