activate_study_case

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only says 'activate', which implies a state change, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, returned values, or whether the operation is reversible. The description is insufficient for understanding behavioral impact.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently structured but may be too short to convey necessary detail.

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 (so return values are not required in description), the lack of annotations, parameter descriptions, and usage guidance leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool safely. The effect of activation is not explained.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the parameter 'study_case_name' is a name, which is already evident from its title. No additional details about valid names, format, or uniqueness are provided, adding minimal value.

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 verb 'activate', the resource 'study case', and the method 'by name' within the context 'in the active project'. It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'activate_project'.

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 implies usage when the project is active and a study case needs to be made active, but it does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use this tool, nor does it mention prerequisites or alternatives.

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