timeline_set_current

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the action without disclosing behavior on missing/invalid names, whether activation is idempotent, or how the current project context is affected. The schema's 'Searches all timelines' hint is not in the description itself.

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, tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource clearly, earning every word.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description plus detailed schema parameter is largely complete. Minor gaps like error behavior when the name is not found are not covered, but the tool is simple enough that this is acceptable.

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% and already explains 'name' as an exact timeline name to activate, so the description does not need to add much. The phrase 'by name' aligns with the schema but adds no new semantic depth beyond it.

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 action ('Set'), the resource ('current timeline'), and the method ('by name'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like timeline_get_current (retrieve) and timeline_set_name (rename).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as timeline_get_by_index or timeline_get_current. The description implies the use case (activating a timeline by its exact name) but does not state exclusions or mention sibling tools.

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