Switch the active colorway in a CLO3D project to the one specified by its zero-based index, enabling direct control over which color variant is used.
Switch to a different colorway.
Args: colorway_index: Zero-based index of the colorway to activate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| colorway_index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the primary behavior (activating the given colorway) and the argument semantics. However, it does not discuss potential side effects, reversibility, or what happens with invalid indices. For a simple state-switch tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 extremely concise: one purpose sentence followed by a single parameter explanation. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no fluff. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 simplicity (one integer parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It states the operation and parameter semantics. It could mention error handling or that the index should be within the range from get_colorways, but these are minor gaps for such a straightforward setter.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that colorway_index is a 'Zero-based index of the colorway to activate,' adding meaning beyond the bare integer type. This is sufficient for a single parameter, though it doesn't reference how to obtain the list of valid indices.
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 clear, specific action: 'Switch to a different colorway.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the tool name set_current_colorway aligns with this. It is clearly distinct from sibling get_colorways, which retrieves colorways rather than changing them.
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 usage by defining the action, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites (e.g., calling get_colorways to obtain valid indices). No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so guidance is minimal but not misleading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.