Activate plugin

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the failure mode (MissingParameterError when plugin_id absent) and the return type, which is useful, but says nothing about what activation actually does to the instance (restarts, permission requirements, async behavior) for a non-idempotent system mutation.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the text is short, but it is a raw RST docstring with mechanical directives (:type plugin_id: str) that add no information. Every sentence earns its place marginally, though the formatting is developer-facing rather than agent-facing.

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 43-parameter, non-idempotent system-mutating call with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition is far too thin: it explains neither the role of the many sibling-derived parameters nor the operational consequences of activation. It covers only the minimum path (one required argument) and the return type.

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 0% across 43 parameters, and the description documents only plugin_id — leaving 42 parameters entirely unexplained in both schema and prose. The one documented parameter is meaningful ('the ID of the plugin to be activated'), but the description does not remotely compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Activate a plugin') and names the identifying parameter, so the agent immediately knows the operation. It does not differentiate from close siblings such as servicenow_rollback_plugin or servicenow_batch_install, which is the only thing separating it from a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like servicenow_rollback_plugin, batch_install, or app_repo_install. No prerequisites stated (e.g., plugin must exist/be downloaded, admin rights required), and no exclusions or context beyond the bare 'activate' action.

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