item_take_set_active

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, prerequisites (e.g., item must have multiple takes), or safety. The description lacks sufficient behavioral context for safe invocation.

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 concise with a purpose sentence followed by parameter details. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words. However, formatting the parameters as a list would improve scanability.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description adequately covers the action and parameter semantics. However, it omits behavioral details (e.g., what happens if take_index is invalid) and does not mention return values, leaving minor 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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds clear parameter meanings: 'item_index: Global item index' and 'take_index: 0-based take index (from item_take_list).' This significantly aids understanding beyond the schema's bare property titles.

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 tool's action: 'Switch which take plays back on an item.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like item_take_list (list takes) and item_take_add (add takes).

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 for changing the active take but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mentions alternatives. Without stating prerequisites or exclusion criteria, the agent may misuse it (e.g., on items with a single take).

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