set_current_timeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and the 1-based indexing, but does not disclose whether the timeline must already exist, what happens if the index is out of range, or any side effects (e.g., resetting playhead). For a simple setter, this is minimal but not fully transparent.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object. It contains no filler words or repetition, and the critical detail (1-based index) is placed at the end efficiently.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It adequately captures the core function, but could optionally mention that it selects from existing timelines or clarify the context of 'current.' Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 only one integer parameter (timeline_index) with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds crucial semantics by specifying '1-based index,' which clarifies the expected value. It does not explain what the index refers to (e.g., order of timelines in the project), but for a single parameter this is meaningful addition.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Set the specified timeline as the current one.' It specifies the resource (timeline) and the operation (set as current). It distinguishes from siblings like create_timeline or append_to_timeline by focusing on selecting an existing timeline rather than creating or modifying.

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 description implies usage: you invoke this when you need to switch the active/current timeline in a project. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., create_timeline), nor does it provide prerequisites or exclusions. The context signals show many sibling tools, but the description offers no direct guidance.

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