pvsyst_license_activate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the confirm=true requirement and a genuine operational risk (MCP clients may retain arguments containing license keys), but says nothing about whether activation is reversible, whether the key is consumed, error/failure behavior, or rate limits.

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 no waste: the action and its gating requirement come first, with the security caveat trailing as supporting context.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should also indicate what happens on success or failure and how the license state changes. It covers the safe-invocation essentials (key, confirm, key-handling caution) but leaves the outcome side unspecified.

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 0% and the schema does not even mark 'confirm' as required, so the description adds real value by stating that confirm=true is mandatory. 'Key' is identified as the license key, covering the second parameter's meaning; only format details are missing.

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 and resource ('Activate a CLI license') plus the input it consumes ('using a supplied key'). The 'CLI license' scope cleanly separates it from the license_info, license_deactivate, and license_sync siblings.

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 activation intent implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites or alternatives — e.g., whether to check pvsyst_license_info first, or what to do if a license is already active. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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