activate_scenario

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that activation enables running, but omits whether the change is reversible, whether it errors on an already-active scenario, permission requirements, and idempotency — all material for a state-mutating tool.

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?

One short sentence with no waste, and the verb and resource are front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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?

A state-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema needs to disclose side effects and reversibility. The description gives only the enabling outcome and leaves the agent without enough context to predict the result of the call.

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% and the single scenarioId parameter is already documented as 'Scenario ID to activate'. The description adds no format, type, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (activate) and resource (scenario), and the clause 'so it can run' hints at the outcome. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like deactivate_scenario or run_scenario, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

'so it can run' implies a workflow ordering (activate before running) but never states when to use this versus deactivate_scenario or run_scenario, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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