Select the active pac auth profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It names the command ('pac auth select') but does not disclose side effects: whether the change persists across sessions, whether it affects subsequent commands, required permissions, or reversibility. For a mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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?

It is short and front-loads the purpose, but the trailing sentence ('Runs "pac auth select" with the active pac auth profile') is circular and slightly confusing, since selecting a profile to become active is what the tool does. It is more redundant than clarifying.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin on behavioral context. The schema covers parameters well, but the description leaves out what happens to the previously active profile and the persistence/permission implications. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description mentions selecting 'by index ... or name,' which simply restates what the schema already provides, adding no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource ('Make a pac auth profile the active one'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cs_create_auth_profile, cs_delete_auth_profile, and cs_list_auth_profiles. It even names the underlying CLI command, grounding the action unambiguously.

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?

It implies the usage (activating a profile) and points to cs_init as the place that lists profiles, which helps select the right index/name. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or conditions/exclusions, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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