Select the active pac auth profile

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral side effects. It says the tool makes a profile active and runs 'pac auth select', but it does not explain consequences like persistent state change, behavior on invalid name/index, or how the 'profile' parameter works. The phrase 'with the active path auth profile' is ambiguous and potentially misleading.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. However, the second sentence 'Runs 'pac auth select' with the active path auth profile' is awkwardly phrased and adds confusion rather than clarity, so it loses a point.

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?

This tool has no annotations, 6 schemas, and no output schema. The description does not mention how name/index interact with profile, whether they are only mutual, what happens on success/failure, or whether background/job handling applies here. An agent may not know how to correctly combine parameters.

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 the schema already describes the parameters. The description adds a small link between 'name' and 'index' options and cs_init listing, but it does not clarify the relationship between these and 'profile' beyond what schema states. This is baseline adequate.

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 a specific action: make a pac auth profile active, by index or name, and cites cs_init for listing. It distinguishes itself from profile listing or creation tools, though it doesn't explicitly nameify which sibling it is not.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other auth-profile tools (e.g., cs_list_auth_profiles, cs_create_auth_profile, cs_auth_who) or when not to use it. The only mention is 'cs_init lists them' for finding the index, which implies prerequisite context but does not state selection criteria.

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