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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful side-effect context: content is preserved but credentials are NOT restored, which is exactly the kind of irreversible detail an agent must know before calling. It omits idempotency/error behavior if the spec is already active, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the state transition is front-loaded and the credential caveat follows immediately. Every clause carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the key behavioral caveat, but leaves edge cases (already-active spec, permission requirements) unaddressed, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents specId fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or selection guidance beyond that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('bring back to active') applied to a specific resource with an explicit precondition (the spec is currently inactive). The state transition clearly contrasts with the sibling deactivate_spec, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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 'inactive' precondition effectively tells the agent when this tool applies, and the credential caveat warns of a consequence. It never names an explicit alternative or exclusion (e.g., what to do instead if the spec is already active), so routing is implied rather than fully spelled out.

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