set_active_ticket_provider

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It indicates a state mutation (switching) but does not mention side effects (e.g., deactivating previous provider), required permissions, or any confirmation steps. This lack of detail means an agent may not understand the full impact.

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 a single sentence of 10 words, front-loading the core action. No redundant words or phrases. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and lack of annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not address what happens after switching (e.g., return value, error cases) or any side effects. While the prerequisite of an already-configured provider is mentioned, an agent may need more context to use it correctly without errors.

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 add meaning to the 'provider' parameter. It adds that the provider must be 'already-configured', which is helpful, but it does not specify expected format (e.g., name vs ID), acceptable values, or how to obtain valid options. Without this, the agent may pass an invalid or unrecognized value.

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 the verb 'Switch' and the resource 'active ticketing provider'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like configure_ticket_provider (which sets up) and remove_ticket_provider (which removes) by specifying the action changes which configured provider is active. The phrase 'to an already-configured provider' implies a prerequisite, adding precision.

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 implies when to use this tool (after providers have been configured) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. It could contrast with configure_ticket_provider (setup) or remove_ticket_provider (deletion), but no such guidance is given.

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