set_active_sequence

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it fails to do so. There is no indication of side effects, reversibility, or changes to project state, which is especially important because 'set_active_sequence' directly modifies state.

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 with no waste, but it is under-specified. Brevity is acceptable, but it lacks any useful supporting detail that could justify a higher score.

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 the tool's role in state modification and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It offers no information about return behavior, failure modes, or how it interacts with other sequence-related tools, leaving many unanswered questions for an agent.

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% and the only parameter, 'sequenceId', is self-explanatory and fully described in the schema ('The ID of the sequence to activate'). The description adds nothing beyond the schema but does not need to, as the parameter is simple and well-documented.

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 'Sets the active sequence in the project' is minimal and only restates the tool's name without additional context. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as 'get_active_sequence' or other sequence-related operations, offering no specificity about what 'active' means or its implications.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an open project) or the effect of setting an active sequence on subsequent operations, leaving critical usage context unaddressed.

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