marketplace_activate_installation

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

The description asserts 'Active state is treated idempotently' while the annotations declare idempotentHint=false. This directly contradicts the structured metadata, which is the most consequential behavioral claim for a caller deciding whether repeat invocation is safe. Per the rules, a description that contradicts annotations scores 1.

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 the action front-loaded and the configuration scope second. Little waste, though 'step 2' costs a clause without earning clarity for an agent that has no surrounding workflow context.

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?

This is a high-complexity mutation with 6 parameters, a nested settings object, no output schema, and very low schema coverage. The description omits the plan/apply distinction details, required credential fields, and any return/confirmation behavior, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 only 17% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate, yet it only names broad settings categories (webhooks/chat/tips/channels). It gives no meaning for mode values (plan vs apply), confirmation, partner_id ownership semantics, or the required login/api_key/secret_key fields.

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?

State a specific verb and resource: 'activate a pending installation and configure entity webhooks/chat/tips/channels.' This distinguishes it from read-only siblings like marketplace_get_installation_status and marketplace_list_installations. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative and 'step 2' is left unexplained.

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?

'Plan or perform step 2' implies a two-phase workflow that maps to the mode enum, giving implied usage context. But there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., marketplace_get_installation_status) or prerequisites like the existence of a pending installation.

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