activate_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that it works both on previously opened documents and on new, never-saved ones, but says nothing about error behavior when a title is missing or what side effects (e.g., switching away from the current document) occur.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the context. No wasted text, though the first sentence's grammar is a bit loose.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, triggering context, and title sourcing. It lacks failure-mode and state-change details, but is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0% and the single 'title' parameter is only typed as string in the schema. The description compensates by telling the agent where titles come from (list_documents) and that they can refer to unsaved documents, which is meaningful added value.

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+resource: making an open document 'current again by its title', and clarifies it also handles a never-saved document. An agent can distinguish this from open_part/close_part siblings, though the phrasing 'make current' is slightly informal.

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?

Explicitly situates usage: 'For after open_part / close_part on another document', and points to list_documents as the source of titles. It gives a clear triggering context but no explicit exclusions or failure conditions.

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