activar_invitacion

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

The annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by explaining what 'deactivated' means: the invitation cannot be opened or confirmed. It does not contradict the annotations and gives an agent the state-change semantics needed to reason about consequences.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the key consequence. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 two-parameter toggle with annotations covering the safety profile, the description states what the tool does and what effect deactivation has. It could add explicit return-value or confirmation behavior, but no output schema exists and the operation is simple enough that the agent can invoke it correctly from the current text.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it partially does: 'Activa o desactiva' maps to the boolean activa and the deactivation consequence clarifies the false state. However, it never explicitly names the parameters or states that activa=true enables and activa=false disables, leaving the mapping mostly inferential.

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 uses a specific verb ('activate or deactivate') and a clear resource ('an invitation'), and defines a concrete consequence of the deactivated state. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like crear_invitacion, editar_invitacion, and ver_invitacion.

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 usage context is implied rather than explicit: the description notes that when deactivated, no one can open or confirm the invitation, which suggests using it to control access. However, it never states 'use this when...' nor names alternatives or exclusions, so guidance is left to inference.

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