Reactivate SAP Tool

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

Annotations cover readOnly (false), destructiveHint (false), and idempotentHint (false). The description adds that the tool is a write operation requiring specific configuration, but does not disclose detailed side effects or potential errors beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise and efficient, with two sentences: one for purpose and one for context. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description adequately covers purpose, usage context, and parameter. It could be improved by noting what the output contains, but the schema fills that gap.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter 'toolName' already described in the schema as 'Name of the tool descriptor to reactivate'. The description merely mentions 'by name', adding no extra semantic value beyond the schema.

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 the action ('Reactivate a SAP tool descriptor by name') with a specific verb and resource. It uniquely identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sap_deactivate_tool.

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 provides important context about write tool prerequisites (signer policy, RPC, active SAP profile) and separates read vs write behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like sap_deactivate_tool.

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