activate_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real side effects: board-sync items are enqueued for every task and a Slack notification is posted. It still omits permission requirements, idempotency/reversibility, and failure behavior for a state-mutating admin 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?

Two sentences, zero padding, and the state transition is front-loaded ahead of the side effects. Every clause carries information.

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 side-effect disclosure is strong for a mutation tool lacking annotations and an output schema, but the 0% parameter coverage and absence of any auth, error, or idempotency notes leave gaps an agent would want before invoking an admin action.

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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters and does not. PlanId is self-evident from its name, but as_agent is never explained and no format, validity, or default guidance is added anywhere.

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 is more precise than a bare 'activate'. It does not differentiate itself from lifecycle siblings like create_plan or archive_plan, but the action is unambiguous.

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 implies a privileged context and the draft-to-active framing implies when it applies, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use or pointer to alternatives such as create_plan or archive_plan. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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