activate_structure

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (readOnlyHint=false), so the description carries the burden. 'For display' suggests a non-destructive view operation, but it doesn't explicitly state that it doesn't modify the model, whether it hides non-activated elements, or if it's reversible. The effect on existing display state is unclear, which could mislead an agent expecting model changes.

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 efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose, then documents arguments. The bilingual text is redundant but not harmful. No wasted sentences, though the Arg list could be integrated more cleanly.

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 simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic mechanics. However, it lacks context about how activation interacts with the global display state (e.g., resets previous activations), whether deactivation is implied, and how to restore full display (e.g., reset_display). Given the large number of sibling display tools, this context would help correct usage.

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's 'Node IDs to activate' and 'Element IDs to activate' add minimal meaning. It explains what each parameter contains but doesn't clarify optionality, whether both can be used at once, or semantics of empty/null. This is marginal value beyond the schema's type hints.

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 (activate) and the resource (nodes/elements) and specifies the purpose (for display). It distinguishes from siblings that create or modify geometry, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives. It's specific enough that an agent can infer it's a display-filtering operation.

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 display_ids, reset_display, switch_display_stage, or other display-related tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, or whether it should be called before/after other operations. The tool's role in the display workflow is implied but not explained.

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