Ativar regra

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only ('readOnlyHint': false), not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds the contextual detail that the rule was disabled, which is helpful. It does not describe side effects or prerequisites, but for a simple activation tool the annotations carry enough of the behavioral burden.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the action, the resource type, and the target state with no filler. Every word earns its place and the description is immediately parseable.

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 tool with one clearly documented parameter and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is essentially complete. It could mention how to obtain the rule ID or what happens if the rule is already active, but those are minor gaps for such a simple operation.

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 schema already fully documents the only parameter ('id' as 'ID da regra') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Reativa') and the resource ('uma regra da Caixa de Entrada'), and specifically scopes it to rules that were previously disabled. This differentiates it from related sibling tools like outlook_desativar_regra, outlook_criar_regra, and outlook_excluir_regra without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 phrase 'que estava desativada' gives clear context for when to use the tool: when a rule has been disabled and needs to be re-enabled. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the intended usage is evident and the complement (outlook_desativar_regra) is identifiable from the sibling list.

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