activate_material

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that activation applies to a single tab, with no detail on side effects, state changes, or error conditions.

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?

One tight sentence with the action and its ID provenance front-loaded. Nothing extraneous.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a single-parameter, idempotent, non-destructive activation tool with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient; only failure behavior is unaddressed.

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?

The single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It usefully identifies valid IDs as those returned by list_materials, which is real added meaning, but says nothing about format or what happens with an invalid/stale ID.

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?

States a specific verb (activate) and resource (one material tab), and ties the operation to the correct ID source. It is distinguishable from siblings like load_material or save_material, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from those near-neighbors.

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 prerequisite is implied clearly: the ID must come from list_materials. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as load_material or new_material, so usage is only partially covered.

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