激活 OCR 容量策略

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 a key behavioral trait: the activation is non-disruptive and only affects future workers. However, it does not mention whether it overwrites an existing active profile, whether it is idempotent, or what happens on invalid profile_id, leaving meaningful gaps in behavior disclosure.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded. The first sentence states the primary action and intended consumer; the second sentence immediately clarifies what it does not do. There is no filler or 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?

For a one-parameter activation tool with an output schema, the description covers the main effect and the side-effect boundary. However, it does not cross-reference plan_ocr_capacity_profile to explain how profile_id should be obtained, nor does it disambiguate from the sibling start_ocr_capacity_profile, which may cause confusion in a broader workflow.

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 description never mentions the sole parameter profile_id. With schema description coverage at 0%, the tool description was expected to compensate, but it provides no guidance on where the ID comes from, its format, or how it relates to the 'completed baseline recommendation' mentioned in the text.

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 identifies the action ('activate') and the target resource (the OCR capacity profile recommendation from a completed baseline). It also scopes the effect to batch workers started afterward. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like start_ocr_capacity_profile or plan_ocr_capacity_profile, so it stops short of full distinction.

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 states when to use the tool—after a completed baseline—and for whom (future batch workers). It also gives a clear exclusion: it will not hot-change, restart, or interrupt running workers. No alternative tool is named, so there is no explicit 'instead of X' guidance, but the context is clear.

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