activate_plane_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait: the call validates before persisting a selection, and it implies an already-active stored workspace is required. It omits what happens on validation failure, whether a prior active project is replaced, and any permission requirements.

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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity is appropriate for a one-parameter state-setting call, though the compression contributes to the missing guidance noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is simple (one scalar param). Still missing is enough to call it reliably: valid project_id sourcing, error behavior when validation fails, and confirmation that the selection persists across later calls.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not compensate: it never says whether project_id is a UUID, slug, or name, nor how to obtain a valid value (e.g., from list_plane_projects). The only hint is the phrase 'a project'.

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 compound verb ('validate and select') and a specific resource ('a project in the active stored workspace'), plus the downstream effect ('future work-item operations'). It is distinguishable from the sibling activate_plane_workspace by operating on a project rather than a workspace, though the description never names the sibling 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?

The clause 'for future work-item operations' implies a prerequisite setup step, so an agent can infer this runs before work-item calls. But nothing states when to prefer it over list_plane_projects or get_active_plane_context, no exclusions, and no prerequisites (e.g., that a workspace must already be active) are spelled out.

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