sdcloud_reactivate_rma_device

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 discloses that the operation returns a job id (async) and suggests polling, but does not mention potential side effects like overwriting device config, required permissions, or failure modes. The transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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: the first states the core purpose, the second specifies the output (job id) and the follow-up tool to poll. Every word is necessary for an agent to understand the tool's function and next steps. Excellent conciseness.

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 role in an RMA workflow and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the main action, output, and next step. It could be improved by noting that it's a long-running operation or indicating prerequisites (e.g., device state). Overall, it is fairly complete for a simple async tool.

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 50%, with only the 'body' param having a description in the schema. The description adds that the body contains the prior RMA device configuration, which gives some semantic meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not detail the required fields within the body or the format of device_id. With 2 params and moderate coverage, a score of 3 is fair.

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 uses a specific verb 'Reactivate' and identifies the resource as a replacement device with prior RMA config. It distinguishes from sibling 'sdcloud_activate_rma_device' by specifying the use of prior config. It also mentions the output (job id) and follow-up tool, providing clear 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 states to poll 'sdcloud_get_rma_reactivation_status' for progress, giving a clear follow-up action. It does not explicitly state when or when not to use this tool, but for an RMA reactivation workflow, the context is implied. A score of 4 is appropriate as it provides usage context without explicit alternatives.

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