audience.hf.apply_activation_plan

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool, yet it says nothing about what the plan actually changes (bids, modifiers, targeting), whether changes are reversible, or that dry_run defaults to true. 'Pro-only' is the only behavioral context provided.

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 with no filler; 'Human-friendly:' framing is mildly wasteful but the operation and gating condition come first.

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 an unannotated write operation with six parameters and no output schema, the description omits consequences, permissions beyond 'pro-only', dry-run behavior, and the relationship to the plan-generating sibling. Not enough for an agent to call it safely.

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?

The description only restates apply=true, which the schema already documents verbatim, and says nothing about targets, segment_id, account_id, or direct_client_login. With 67% schema coverage the description adds essentially no param meaning beyond the schema.

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+resource (apply an activation plan for an Audience segment in Direct) and names the gating condition (apply=true). It implicitly contrasts with the sibling audience.hf.activation_plan that produces the plan, though it never names it.

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 parenthetical '(pro-only, apply=true)' hints at a prerequisite and the schema's 'Must be true to execute' reinforces it, but the description never says when to use this versus generating a plan first or what happens on failure. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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