set_current_phase

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

Annotations already indicate this is mutating (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that: it confirms it operates on an existing phase and is intended for subsequent edits. It does not disclose side effects like what happens to the previously current phase or whether a valid phase name/ID is required.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 low complexity (one required parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, the lack of parameter semantics and the absence of guidance on how to reference an existing phase make it incomplete for an agent to use confidently without additional inference.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain how to specify the 'phase' parameter (e.g., by name, ID, or path). The schema only provides type string and minLength=1, which is insufficient for an agent to know what value to pass. The description's 'existing phase' is a hint but does not clarify the format or identifier expected.

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 'Make an existing phase the current phase for further edits' uses a specific verb ('make') and resource ('phase'), clearly distinguishing this from creating a new phase (create_phase) or setting a property (set_phase_property). The phrase 'existing phase' differentiates it from creation tools, and 'for further edits' clarifies its role.

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 clear context: this is used before making edits to set which phase is active. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use activate to enable a phase' or 'do not use this for creating phases.' The implied usage is reasonably clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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