Activate a specific document in the same project using explicit IDs and receive the new target. Prevents guessing by not inferring documents from tab titles.
Activate an explicit document in the same project and return its new target. Does not infer documents from tab titles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | ||
| target | Yes | ||
| documentId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive). The description adds useful behavioral context: the tool returns its new target, operates within the same project, and does not infer documents from tab titles. No contradiction with annotations is present.
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?
Two focused sentences with no filler. The action and outcome are front-loaded, and the negative clarification is efficient and valuable.
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 tool with three required parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions returning a new target but does not explain the target's shape, the parameter relationships, or the return format. An agent would likely need to inspect the schema heavily and still lack semantic guidance.
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 0%, and the description provides no field-level parameter meaning. It does not clarify how top-level documentId and domain relate to the nested target object, nor what windowId or projectId mean. With zero schema coverage, the description needed to compensate but did not.
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 states a specific action with resources: 'Activate an explicit document in the same project and return its new target.' The clarifying negation 'Does not infer documents from tab titles' further sharpens what the tool is and is not for, distinguishing it from inference-based behaviors among siblings.
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 clear context: use this tool when you have an explicit document in the same project, and avoid it when relying on tab-title inference. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so routing guidance is implied rather than fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.