document_activate

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 does not state whether the switch is reversible, what happens on an out-of-range or stale index, whether unsaved changes matter, or what the tool returns; the only behavioral hint is that indices come from krita_status. For a state-mutating focus switch, 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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and the parameter hint in a parenthetical; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), so the description does not need to explain return values. What is missing is only failure behavior for invalid indices, which is a modest gap given the tool's low complexity.

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 schema only declares a bare integer named "Index". The description partially compensates by anchoring the value to krita_status output, but it leaves the base (0- vs 1-based) and the validity range unstated, so the agent still cannot be certain of the correct value to pass.

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?

"Switch the active document" is a specific verb+resource pair that is clearly distinct from sibling document operations such as document_new, document_open, document_info, and document_close. The parenthetical reinforces that this is a focus/selection change rather than a file operation, though it doesn't explicitly name a 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?

The parenthetical "index from krita_status" implies a prerequisite workflow (call krita_status first to obtain valid indices), which is genuinely useful routing information. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of what to do if the target document is not yet open (e.g., use document_open instead).

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