set_active_drawing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (activates a drawing) but does not explain side effects, what 'active' means, whether other drawings are affected, or what happens if the drawing is not open. This is insufficient for a state-changing operation.

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, well-structured sentence that is direct and free of unnecessary words. It effectively conveys the core functionality and parameter semantics.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics. However, it lacks behavioral details such as error handling, prerequisites (drawing must be open), and the exact meaning of 'active', making it only minimally complete.

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?

The input schema only defines 'name' as a string with no description. The tool description adds meaningful context by specifying that the name can be a name or a path, which clarifies the expected input format beyond the schema.

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 ('Activa') and resource ('dibujo ya abierto'), clarifying that it activates an already-open drawing, which distinguishes it from 'open_drawing' that would open a new one. The scope ('por nombre o ruta') further specifies how the target is identified.

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 phrase 'ya abierto' clearly implies the tool should be used only for drawings that are already open, providing contextual usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'open_drawing' for opening closed drawings or 'list_open_drawings' to see available options.

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