Set auto-activation policy

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful context: what the update does (activates numbers without manual call), mode-specific behavior (FOC for ASAP), and error codes. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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?

Three sentences: first states purpose, second lists modes with brief descriptions, third lists errors. No fluff, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value.

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 mutation tool with idempotentHint, the description sufficiently explains what it does and when to use it. No output schema exists, but the description doesn't need to detail return values. Slight gap: no mention of response behavior, but not critical given simplicity.

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 covers all 3 params with descriptions (100% coverage). The description reinforces the dependency of scheduled_at on mode=SCHEDULED and adds behavioral context for each mode (e.g., 'activate as soon as FOC is reached' for ASAP), which the schema does not provide.

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?

Description clearly states it updates the auto-activation mode, enumerates the three modes with concise explanations, and distinguishes from the manual port_activate call. The verb 'update' and resource 'port project's auto-activation mode' are specific.

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 explains the benefit of using this tool (avoid manual port_activate call) and describes each mode's behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like port_activate for manual activation. The context of sibling tools partially compensates.

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