activate_location

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the outcome (enables stocking) but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., location must exist or be inactive), reversibility, permissions, or error cases. This is a notable gap for a mutation-style tool.

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 filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to the intended action and purpose.

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 one-parameter activation tool without annotations or output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what, why, and the key resource. It falls short of a 5 only because it omits preconditions or edge-case behavior, but the low complexity mitigates this.

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 100%, so the parameter is already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning ('at the location') but does not provide additional guidance on ID format or how to obtain it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pair ('Activate a location') and clarifies the intended effect ('so that you can stock inventory at the location'). This distinguishes it from related siblings like deactivate_location and update_location.

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 context: use when you need to enable a location for inventory stocking. It clearly communicates the trigger but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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