proxy_activate_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the defer mechanism, the creation of a `_load` tool, and the eager option. Missing details on idempotency or error behavior if server already active, but the core behavioral traits are well communicated.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, then a bullet-like explanation of behavior and parameters. No wasted words; front-loaded with the core action.

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 sibling tools and an output schema exists, the description covers activation behavior and parameter details sufficiently. The lack of output description is acceptable because the output schema provides that information.

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%, so the description provides essential parameter meaning. It explains 'name' as the server name from proxy.list_available_servers() and 'eager' as immediate spawn vs deferral, adding value beyond the schema's type/default.

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 specifies the action 'Activate (mount) a server from the catalogue by name', distinguishing it from sibling tools like proxy_list_available_servers (listing) and proxy_deactivate_server (deactivation). The verb and resource are explicit.

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 explains default behavior (deferred stub) and the alternative (eager=True), plus references proxy.list_available_servers() for valid names. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., if server already active), though the purpose itself differentiates from siblings.

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