set_active_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation writes local configuration and explicitly states what it does NOT change (credentials, permissions, server data), which is valuable for setting agent expectations about side effects. However, it does not mention reversibility, authentication requirements, or potential errors, so it is not fully transparent but exceeds a minimal description.

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 two sentences with no filler. The action and core scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence clarifies boundaries. Every word earns its place; it is concise and well-structured.

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 simple config-switching tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and side-effect scope. However, it omits practical context such as how to discover valid profile names (e.g., via list_profiles), what happens if the profile does not exist, and whether the operation returns a success indicator. These gaps leave an agent to infer essential call details, so completeness is only partial.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single 'profile' parameter, and the description does not compensate. It refers to 'active profile' but gives no details on valid values, format, or how to obtain them (e.g., from list_profiles). The only hint is that the parameter represents the profile to make active, but that's minimally inferred. This is insufficient for a parameter with no schema-level documentation.

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 ('Switch') and resource ('active profile'), and clearly delimits scope to the MCP server's local config, distinguishing it from siblings like get_active_profile (read) and list_profiles (list). It also explicitly excludes changes to credentials, permissions, or server data, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 it (when you want to switch profiles) but does not compare against alternatives or state exclusions. It does not mention that list_profiles can retrieve valid profile names or that get_active_profile shows the current one. No explicit when-not or alternative routing is provided, making usage guidance only implicit.

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