activate_game_feature_plugin

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the activation is async on the subsystem ticker, the call returns immediately with the current state, and an already-active plugin no-ops with already_active=true. It doesn't explain the destructiveHint=true annotation or any authorization requirements, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and resource; the async/poll guidance follows immediately. It is dense and mostly earns its place, though the explicit Returns block is somewhat verbose given the same fields would normally appear in a return type.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by spelling out the return object's fields and the async completion pattern. For a 2-param activation tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 schema already documents plugin_url (takes precedence) and plugin_name (resolved via registry). The description's "by name or URL" only restates this and adds no syntax or precedence detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 pair (load and activate) plus the resource (Game Feature Plugin), and the two ways to identify it (name or URL). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_game_feature_plugin_state by naming it as the polling target, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit operational guidance: fire the call, then poll get_game_feature_plugin_state until state == "Active". This names the alternative and the condition. It does not, however, clarify when to prefer this over deactivate/unload_game_feature_plugin, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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