activate_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is known; the description usefully adds the hidden side effects (board-sync items enqueued per task, a plan.activated Slack post). It leaves one real gap: with idempotentHint=true, it does not say whether those side effects fire again on a repeated call.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the admin/permission signal and the state transition are front-loaded, and the side-effect sentence follows in priority order.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what it does and its externally visible effects well. The omissions are the undisclosed 'as_agent' parameter and any indication of what a successful 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 clarifies neither parameter. PlanId format/constraints are unstated, and 'as_agent' — a governance-relevant impersonation field on an admin mutation — is not mentioned at all, so the description fails to compensate for the empty schema.

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 and resource plus the exact state transition ('move a plan from draft to active'), which no sibling tool performs. An agent can distinguish it from create_plan, archive_plan, and export_plan without opening any schema.

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 'Admin:' prefix signals a permission prerequisite and the draft→active transition implies the precondition, but the description never names an alternative (e.g., archive_plan for retirement) or says when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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