Reactivate SAP Agent

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

Annotations already indicate non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that it is a write tool requiring signer policy, but does not detail behavioral traits such as reversibility, side effects, or required permissions beyond the generic context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence provides useful but generic context. It is efficient with no wasted words.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks specifics about prerequisites (e.g., agent must be deactivated first) and what changes occur on reactivation. It is adequate but not complete.

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?

The input schema has no parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. Baseline of 4 applies as no parameter details are needed.

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 clearly states 'Reactivate the connected wallet SAP agent.' This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like deactivate, register, update, and close. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 includes generic context about write tools requiring signer policy and active profile, but it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when an agent is deactivated). Usage guidance is implied by the name but not elaborated.

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