document_activate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the global side effect on all other tools, two specific error outcomes (INVALID_PARAMS with details.candidates for duplicate names, ENTITY_NOT_FOUND for unmatched refs), and the return shape including is_active. This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by error semantics, return value, and a single example with no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description documents the return value (document info as in document_list with is_active: true), the single parameter's format, and both failure modes, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly.

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%, so baseline would be 3; the description adds value by giving a concrete ref example ('document:file:urn:adsk.wipprod:dm.lineage:abc') and explaining what happens when the ref is ambiguous or unmatched, going beyond the schema's format note.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (make an open document the active one) and immediately adds the consequence that all other tools operate on it, which separates it from document_list/document_open/document_save siblings. An agent knows exactly what state change occurs.

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 clause 'every other tool then works on it' tells the agent when this tool is needed (before any per-document operation), and the ambiguity/no-match failure modes describe edge conditions. It does not explicitly compare against siblings like assembly_activate, but the usage context is clear.

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