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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the key side effect: activating a prompt automatically deactivates other prompts of the same type/subtype. It also explains the restore semantics, which is important behavioral context that the annotations alone do not provide. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 sentences carry significant meaning: the first states the primary action and target, the second explains the side effect and routes to an alternative. Every sentence earns its place, and no filler is present.

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?

The description covers the core action, side effects, and alternative tool usage. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed. The only minor omission is explicit handling of is_active=false/null, but overall this is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 50%, and the description compensates by explaining the meaning of is_active=true (restore a previous version) and the automatic deactivation side effect. However, it does not explicitly define the behavior of is_active=false or null, though the opening 'Activate or deactivate' implies false deactivates. This is a minor gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Activate or deactivate a prompt by its ID.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from create_prompt by stating that text changes should go through create_prompt instead, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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 gives explicit usage context: restoring a previous prompt version via is_active=true, and the automatic deactivation of the currently active prompt of the same type and subtype. It also names the alternative (create_prompt) for changing prompt text, providing clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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