timeiq_client_activate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core mutation (sets isActive to true) but omits details on permissions, side effects, or error conditions (e.g., if client is already active). This is minimally adequate.

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 sentence of 11 words, front-loading the key action and effect. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description provides the essential purpose and effect but lacks details on permissions, error states, and response. It is minimally complete for a basic mutation tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'slug'. The description does not explain what 'slug' represents, leaving the agent to infer its meaning. This is a significant gap since parameter semantics are not compensated.

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 (re-activate), the resource (archived client), and the internal effect (sets isActive to true). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like timeiq_client_archive and timeiq_client_create.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide prerequisites or context. The name and implication suggest it is the inverse of archive, but explicit guidance is lacking.

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