clash.profiles.activate

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It warns about changing active network configuration, explains the confirmation mechanism and nonce requirement. No contradictions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, zero waste. Efficiently communicates the two-step process and rationale.

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?

Given 4 parameters and two-step process without output schema, description explains the entire flow and parameter roles. Lacks return value details but given no output schema, the description is adequate.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value beyond schema by explaining the role of confirmed (preview vs execution) and confirmNonce as one-time nonce, and timeoutMs clamping. Does not repeat schema descriptions.

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 'Activate a Profile through Clash Verge itself' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list, inspect, etc., which do not activate.

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 describes the two-step confirmation process: first call with confirmed=false to receive a nonce, then retry with confirmed=true and confirmNonce. Explains why (network configuration change). No explicit when-not, but sufficient.

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