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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses that this mutates app state, which route is used under user auth versus app-token fallback, required ownership, and likely 404/403 errors. It also surfaces the precondition that a bot instance must already exist, which is critical behavioral context the annotations do not provide.

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 dense but efficiently organized: main effect, required precondition, auth behavior, errors, and related tools. Every sentence adds actionable information with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 mutating activation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, preconditions, auth, errors, and related follow-ups. It does not describe the response/return value, but for this tool the key information an agent needs before invoking it is present.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already explains each parameter's default, source, and the API-created vs dashboard-created app distinction. The description adds some relational context (activating sets `App.defaultBotInstanceId`) but does not substantially extend what the schema already communicates.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Make an agent the app's ACTIVE widget bot' and names the exact effect (`App.defaultBotInstanceId`, `botStatus: on`). It clearly explains why this matters (`POST /v2/widget/sessions`) and distinguishes this activation action from general bot-enable or agent-update tools.

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 strong context for when to use the tool: it is 'Required before an embedded widget can answer on an API-created app' and states the precondition to invite the agent first. It also lists related next steps (`ethora-widget-embed-snippet`, `ethora-bot-instances-list`). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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