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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the state-changing-but-non-destructive profile is covered. The description usefully specifies the resulting state (equipment live, accepting jobs), but says nothing about idempotency, whether activation is reversible, or permission requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action and its consequence with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the essential effect. It could go further on prerequisites and reversibility, but nothing critical to invoking it is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents registrationId. The description adds only the implicit constraint that it must reference an approved registration; baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter definition.

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?

Specific verb (activate) plus resource (approved registration) and a concrete outcome — the operator's equipment goes live and can accept jobs. The word 'approved' implicitly separates it from approve_registration and reject_registration, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 prerequisite that the registration must already be approved is implied by the adjective 'approved', which gives some usage context. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance, nor any statement of when activation should not be attempted.

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