Set the active component for subsequent sketch, primitive, and feature operations. Use 'root' to reset targeting to the top-level component.
Set the build target for subsequent sketch, primitive, and feature operations.
Use root to reset targeting to the root component.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | root |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false, so mutation is expected. The description adds important stateful context: it establishes a persistent build target that affects later operations and explains how to reset with 'root'. This goes beyond the annotations and makes the side effect explicit.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. The core purpose and the critical reset convention are both stated with minimal words and maximum signal.
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 stateful setter with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantic and behavioral information. An agent knows what it does, how to reset it, and what it affects. It could mention verifying current target via get_active_component, but that is not strictly required.
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 0% and there is no parameter description, so the description must compensate. It explains the special value 'root' and implies the name parameter refers to a component name, but it does not clarify valid name formats, nested component references, or failure behavior. Partial compensation only.
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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('build target') and clearly states which downstream operations are affected ('subsequent sketch, primitive, and feature operations'). This differentiates it from the sibling fusion_get_active_component by verb and intent.
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 indicates when to use the tool: before sketch, primitive, or feature operations, when those should target a non-root component or reset to root. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.