set_active_sequence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether this mutates editor state, whether a project must be open, what happens if both or neither of the two optional parameters are supplied (required count is 0), or whether the previous active sequence is affected – a notable gap for a state-mutating tool.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and the identifying mechanism. Nothing to trim.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is barely adequate: it omits the zero-required-parameter ambiguity, error behavior when a name/index is invalid, and any side effects. The rich schema coverage of parameters keeps this from being worse.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters, and the baseline is 3. The phrase 'by name or index' hints at two selector modes but adds no precedence rules or the critical detail that at least one selector must be supplied.

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 states a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('a sequence as the active/open sequence'), making it the counterpart to get_active_sequence and get_sequences in the sibling list. An agent can tell what state change occurs, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb – you call this when you want a different sequence to become the active one – but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance (e.g., relations to get_active_sequence or create_sequence).

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