activate_configuration

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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the important context that activation targets an existing configuration in the active part or assembly, but it does not describe failure behavior when the name is missing or the document has no matching configuration.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes to action, target, or scope.

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 simple one-parameter activation tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the core action and document scope. It could be slightly more complete by noting what happens when no matching configuration exists.

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%, so the schema only says the parameter is a string named 'name'. The description compensates partially by clarifying that 'name' refers to an existing configuration to activate, but it does not specify matching rules or formatting.

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 and resource: activate an existing configuration. It adds useful scope ('by name in the active part or assembly') but does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as list_configurations or add_configuration.

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?

Usage is implied: use it to activate an existing configuration in the active document. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives for listing or adding configurations.

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