activate_subscription_contract

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a precondition (eligible statuses), but it does not explain side effects, reversibility, or what happens after activation, which is a significant gap for a mutation 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 compact sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It is efficient, though the parenthetical is somewhat awkward and could be clearer.

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?

The tool has only one parameter and no output schema, but the description is too sparse to be complete. It leaves unclear what activation means, exactly which statuses are valid, and any consequences; the ambiguity around 'active' is a notable gap.

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 is fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage, and the schema description matches the tool's mention. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the specific verb 'Activate' and the resource 'subscription contract', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like pause, cancel, or expire. The parenthetical adds a precondition about statuses, though the inclusion of 'active' is somewhat ambiguous, reducing full clarity.

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 by specifying that the contract must be in active, paused, or failed status, providing some context for when to call the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as pause or cancel.

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