set_active_profile

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

Annotations provide only basic read/write and destructive hints. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the operation is purely local and never calls Bitbucket, and the target profile must already exist. This goes beyond the structured metadata without contradicting it.

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 one short sentence plus a compact clarifying clause. The core action and the 'existing profile' constraint are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning with no filler.

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 single-parameter local state mutation with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it states the action, the precondition, and the network boundary. Minor omissions such as error behavior when the profile does not exist or whether the change persists are acceptable for such a simple tool.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter. It adds the key semantic constraint that 'profile' must be an existing profile, rather than any arbitrary string. However, it does not specify the expected identifier format or where valid values come from (e.g., list_profiles), leaving the parameter partially underspecified.

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?

Uses a specific action verb ('Switches') and a precise resource ('the active profile') with a clear binding constraint ('to an existing profile'). This strongly distinguishes it from siblings like get_active_profile and list_profiles, which are read-oriented, and from set_default_workspace, which targets a different setting.

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 description clearly implies when to use the tool: when the agent needs to change the locally active profile, and explicitly notes that no Bitbucket call will be made. It does not name sibling alternatives or explicit exclusion conditions, but the context is unambiguous enough for correct selection.

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