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

Annotations already mark the tool as not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that the operation is a live state toggle between draft and active, which is non-obvious context. However, it stops short of explaining what 'live' changes in practice or any side effects of deactivation.

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 the core operation front-loaded and no filler. Every phrase contributes, including the parenthetical state transition.

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 toggle, the description plus schema covers the mechanics. It is less complete on when to use it versus governance siblings and what 'live action' implies for the agent, so the full context is not quite there.

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 100%, and the schema already documents active's boolean meaning and policy_id's purpose. The description reinforces the active-to-state mapping but adds no new parameter details beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Activate or deactivate'), a specific resource ('governance policy'), and the exact state transition ('draft <-> active'). This makes the operation unambiguous and distinguishes it from creation or policy assignment siblings.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus set_governance_policies, create_governance_policy, or other governance-related siblings. 'Activation is a live action' only hints at an effect; it does not state when this tool is appropriate.

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