ap_select_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the selection is 'read back from the context' so the result confirms the change took effect, which clarifies the tool's confirmation behavior beyond a bare 'select' command. It does not cover side effects like persistence or permission requirements, but for a simple active-tool setter this is reasonably 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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and enumerates the valid values in a list, and the second clarifies the confirmation behavior. Every word earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains what it does, what values are valid, and how the result confirms success. A small gap is not stating any consequences of changing the active tool, but for this simple setter the description is otherwise sufficient.

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 100%: the only parameter 'tool' has a full enum and a description saying 'Tool name.' The description simply repeats the enum values and does not add deeper semantics about what each tool does, but the tool names are self-explanatory. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameter well.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Select the active tool', followed by the complete list of valid tool values. The list and the 'active tool' phrasing make it clear this is about switching the current context tool, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ap_set_brush or ap_material_select.

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 that this tool is used when the agent needs to change the active tool, but it does not explicitly contrast it with related selectors such as ap_set_brush or ap_material_select. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond the obvious 'select the active tool' intent.

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