activate_configuration

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

With no annotations, the description fully handles transparency. It discloses that the switch triggers a rebuild, applies suppressions and dimensions, and returns the previous configuration name. However, it lacks details on side effects like reversibility or error conditions, so it's good but not exhaustive.

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 bilingual (Spanish and English), making it longer than necessary. It is front-loaded with the main action but the repetition reduces conciseness. The Args section is clear.

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 no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, use case, and return value. It is mostly complete, though it does not explain error handling or behavior for non-existent configurations.

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 parameter 'name' is described as 'Name of the configuration to activate', which adds some meaning but is minimal. Given 0% schema coverage, this is adequate but not detailed; it essentially restates the parameter's purpose.

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 tool activates a different configuration of the active document, distinguishes from sibling tools like create_configuration and delete_configuration, and mentions the rebuild effect and relation to build_variant_family.

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 a specific use case: verifying a variant built with build_variant_family before saving. It implies context but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or alternative tools.

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