activate_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does mention the main side effect (creating a cache directory), but it omits details such as idempotency, permissions required, error behavior if the project is already active, or whether existing data is overwritten. This is a moderate level of transparency given the mutation nature of the tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, resource, and effect without any filler. It earns its place and is appropriately concise.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately adequate. It explains the core functionality but fails to mention return values, preconditions, or failure scenarios. Given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, it's minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description doesn't need to add param details. However, the description also adds no extra meaning about how language or projectName affect the behavior, staying at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 ('Activate a project') and its purpose ('for code tracking'), and it specifies the tangible effect ('Creates .CodeRecoder cache directory with structured data'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like deactivate_project or snapshot tools, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 this tool is used to start code tracking for a project, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It doesn't contrast with alternatives like create_session or create_project_snapshot, so the usage context is only implied, not stated.

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