Activate Project

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it activates a project, implying a state change, but doesn't disclose behavioral details like side effects, permissions needed, or what 'activation' entails. No contradiction with annotations.

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 that front-loads the core action and parameter. There is no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given one parameter with full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is reasonably complete. It could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., what activation does), but the structured data reduces the burden. For a simple activation tool, it's adequate.

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%, with one parameter ('project') fully documented in the schema. The description adds that the project can be a 'name' or 'path', which slightly clarifies the schema's 'name of a registered project or path', but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most documentation.

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 action ('activates') and the resource ('project'), specifying it uses a name or path. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_current_config' or 'switch_modes' by focusing on project activation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools (none listed).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., project registration), exclusions, or related tools like 'switch_modes' that might handle mode changes. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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