activateByName

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which is minimal. The description goes well beyond by disclosing a critical behavioral quirk: the backend may return success:true even when the object remains inactive, and the tool compensates by returning verified/stillInactive and lowering success to false when anything is left inactive. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs and that annotations do not provide.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, then explains the verification behavior and the alternative. Every sentence earns its place, though the middle sentence is a bit dense with success:true/verified/stillInactive details. Still, it's appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral caveat (false success), the verification mechanism, and the recommended alternative. It doesn't describe the exact return shape beyond the mentioned fields, but the description's job is to add value beyond structured fields, and it does so well. The missing return format is a minor gap given the behavioral warning is the critical context.

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 all four parameters. The description adds context about objectName and objectUrl (the required ones) by tying them to the activation action, but it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for mainInclude or preauditRequested. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 tool activates an ABAP object by name and URL, and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling activateSafe. It names the specific resource (ABAP object) and the action (activate), and even explains the verification step via the inactive list. This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation from siblings.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool vs alternatives: it warns that the backend can answer success:true for objects that stay inactive (e.g., freshly created class), and recommends activateSafe as the better tool for activating exactly the rows inactiveObjects reports. This is explicit when/when-not guidance with a named alternative.

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