Activate Project

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds minimal behavioral context by implying activation of a project, but it doesn't elaborate on effects like environment changes or permissions needed. With annotations covering safety, the description provides some value but not rich behavioral details.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 moderate complexity (activation operation), high schema coverage, annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the basic action but could benefit from more context on outcomes or integration with sibling tools, though the structured data reduces the burden on the description.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the 'project' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints, but since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate unnecessarily.

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 ('activates') and the resource ('the project with the given name or path'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'switch_modes' or 'get_current_config', which might relate to project state changes, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'switch_modes' or 'get_current_config', nor does it mention prerequisites like needing a registered project. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage context unclear.

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