activate_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'activate', implying state change. It does not disclose side effects, error handling, or idempotency, leaving the agent without essential behavioral details.

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 single sentence is efficient and front-loaded, containing no fluff. However, it is perhaps too brief given the missing details, but conciseness is still a strength.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not described), the description omits any mention of return values, error conditions, or what 'activation' entails. For a tool with one parameter and no annotation context, this is insufficient.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description adds 'by name', which is minimal and somewhat redundant with the parameter title 'Project Name'. It does not explain name format, case sensitivity, or valid values.

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 the verb 'activate' and the resource 'PowerFactory project' by name. It distinguishes from siblings like 'activate_study_case' and 'get_active_project', making the tool's unique role clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'activate_study_case' or 'get_active_project'. The description provides no context on prerequisites or typical usage scenarios.

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