Activate an artifact by its ID. The artifact must belong to the authenticated client's domain. Activation makes the artifact live — only one version of a given type can be active at a time. Use when an agent needs to deploy an approved artifact to production.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| artifact_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the burden. It discloses two key behavioral traits: the artifact must belong to the authenticated client's domain, and activation enforces a single-active-version rule. However, it stops short of explaining what happens to the previously active version or whether activation is reversible.
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 four sentences, each adding specific value: the core action, a domain constraint, the activation behavior, and a usage guideline. No fluff or repetition, and it is front-loaded with the action verb.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers what, when, and key constraints. It does not mention return values or error behavior, but these are not essential for activation and the sibling context is rich.
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% and the only parameter is 'artifact_id'. The description explicitly states 'Activate an artifact by its ID', which clarifies the parameter's purpose and adds meaning beyond the bare schema. It lacks format or example details, but for a single string ID this is adequate.
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 ('Activate'), the resource ('an artifact by its ID'), and the outcome ('makes the artifact live'). It also distinguishes from siblings like 'approve_artifact' and 'get_artifact' by explaining the uniqueness constraint ('only one version of a given type can be active at a time').
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?
Provides explicit usage context: 'Use when an agent needs to deploy an approved artifact to production.' This indicates when the tool is appropriate, but it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, which would merit a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, though analyze_geo overlaps slightly with get_bleed_model and get_competitor_actions. Descriptions clarify the differences, making misselection unlikely.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (activate_artifact, get_bot_activity, mark_applied). Minor deviations like analyze_geo instead of get_geo_analysis don't break the pattern.
16 tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the server covers multiple subdomains (artifacts, analysis, quick wins, reporting), so each tool has a clear purpose.
The tool set covers the full artifact lifecycle (generate, list, get, approve, activate, regenerate) and the core analysis metrics. Minor gaps like no explicit delete tool for artifacts exist, but regenerate serves that need.
