Set Active Roadmap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It states what is configured but does not mention that this likely changes persistent/global active state, whether prior values are overwritten, or what the result/response of the call is.

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 efficient sentence with the action and resource front-loaded. Every phrase contributes meaning: the resource, the governed fields, and the counter semantics. There is no filler or repetition.

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 state-setting tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so it needs more context to be safely invoked. Missing side effects, usage timing, and clearer parameter relationships leave important gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it partially does by grouping step_index and total_steps as 'progress step counters' and interpreting current_topic as 'current topic node.' However, it does not explain individual parameter meaning, constraints, or how the counters relate to the roadmap state.

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 uses a specific verb ('Configure') with a clear resource ('the active roadmap') and lists the key fields involved. This makes the tool's purpose understandable and distinguishes it from retrieval-oriented siblings like get_next_roadmap_command, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as quick_config or get_next_roadmap_command. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual signals explaining the intended workflow placement.

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