activateObjects

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses critical behavioral traits: the call can report success:true while the object remains inactive, and activating only the class row can leave stale method fragments executing. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct value: what the tool does, the safety warning and preferred alternative, and an input constraint. It is front-loaded and dense without fluff.

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 the tool's complexity and absence of an output schema, the description covers input shape, a critical failure mode, and a safer alternative. It does not explain the full return payload, but mentions success:true, and the rest is sufficiently inferable from the sibling tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by telling the agent to use rows from inactiveObjects and that adtcore:parentUri must be non-empty and is left empty for programs. It does not discuss preauditRequested, but the schema already covers that.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Activate the objects you name' and defines the expected row shape via inactiveObjects. It distinguishes itself from activateSafe but does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named sibling activateByName.

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?

It gives explicit guidance to prefer activateSafe and explains why, covering the main alternative. It lacks a crisp 'use this when...' statement, but the warning context clearly implies this tool is the less-safe variant.

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