fusion_activate_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly reveals important safety behaviors: it rejects duplicate IDs and never saves or closes other documents. It does not fully describe response format or error behavior, but the main side-effect boundaries are clearly stated.

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 two dense sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the constrained behaviors are stated efficiently. Every clause earns its place.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and three required parameters, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not explain what the response looks like, how operation_id is used, or what happens to the currently active document. An agent would still need to guess about key invocation details.

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 description does not compensate for any of the three required parameters. It mentions 'by creation ID' but never maps that to target_document_id, and it does not explain current_document_id or operation_id. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds little semantic value.

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 and resource: 'Activate exactly one already-open document by creation ID.' It also clarifies scope and constraints ('exactly one', 'already-open'), which distinguishes it from tools like fusion_open_archive or fusion_documents. Even without naming a sibling, the action is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool: when the target document is already open and needs to be activated. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as fusion_open_archive or fusion_documents. Usage context is present but left to inference.

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