sequence_activate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the action (activate/deactivate), it doesn't describe what activation/deactivation entails, whether it requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 perfectly structured and concise: a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized parameter and return value sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations but has an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks important context about behavioral implications and usage guidelines, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'sequence_id' identifies the sequence and 'active' controls activation (True) or deactivation (False), providing clear semantic meaning that the schema lacks. The baseline would be 3 with high schema coverage, but here the description compensates well for the schema 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with the verb 'activate or deactivate' and the resource 'a sequence', making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'workflow_activate' or 'sequence_get', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when activation/deactivation is appropriate, or how this differs from related tools like 'workflow_activate' or 'sequence_get' in the sibling list.

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