set_active_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action and does not mention side effects such as whether the object is also selected (despite the 'select' parameter), what happens to the previously active object, or any error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool that changes global state.

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 two short sentences with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the core action and then adds a purpose note. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 that this tool affects global state and has a 'select' parameter, the description should clarify how selection is handled and how it interacts with other object operations. It also lacks any mention of prerequisites or error handling. The description is minimal and leaves an agent guessing about important behavioral details.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description provides no explanation of the 'name' or 'select' parameters. The description does not mention what 'name' refers to or how 'select' affects behavior. Since the schema itself gives only types and defaults, the agent gets no additional semantic guidance.

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 'Make an object active' with a specific resource ('object'), and adds context that many operators act on the active object. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like set_active_camera, but the resource is unambiguous. This is a clear, non-tautological statement.

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 that this tool is used to set the target for operators that act on the active object ('Many operators act on the active object'). However, it does not explicitly say 'use this before such operators' or provide any alternatives or exclusions. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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