activateSafe

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

The description discloses a detailed behavioral contract: it reads inactiveObjects, activates exactly those entries, re-reads and fails if anything is still inactive. This goes far beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and provides crucial safety information about verification and failure handling.

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 three sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and provides both process details and usage guidance without redundancy. Every sentence 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 the complexity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the verification behavior and usage guidance. It does not explicitly cover error scenarios (e.g., lock requirements), but the key behavioral aspects are well covered, making it sufficient for an agent to call correctly.

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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does not need to given full schema documentation.

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 specific verb ('activate') and resource ('object'), and further clarifies what 'activate' means (class plus its method fragments, sections and test include). It explicitly contrasts itself with activateByName, making its unique purpose unmistakable.

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 recommends this tool over activateByName, explaining the risk of the alternative returning success without activating. It also implies when to use it (when you need verified activation) by referencing inactiveObjects.

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