workflow_epic_activate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the required CREATED source state, which is useful, but says nothing about what activation changes, whether it is irreversible, permission requirements, or how expectedVersion failure is handled for this state transition.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and its precondition are stated immediately. It is appropriately terse, though brevity here partly reflects missing detail rather than tight editing.

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 state-mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the definition leaves key information missing. An agent cannot tell from the description alone what expectedVersion must be or what a successful/failed activation returns.

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% and the description explains neither parameter. epicId is inferable from its name, but expectedVersion has non-obvious optimistic-concurrency semantics that are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Activate a CREATED epic', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like workflow_epic_create and workflow_epic_attach_ticket. It also names the lifecycle precondition (CREATED state), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other epic-state siblings such as workflow_epic_resume.

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?

'before attaching tickets' gives a sequencing cue: this must happen prior to attachment, implying when the tool is appropriate. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative for epics already active or in another state.

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