Reactivate agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered. The description adds only the precondition that the agent must be deactivated; it says nothing about permissions required, side effects on associated tickets/requester links, or error behavior.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and zero padding. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves little room for the useful preconditions it omits.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is simple with one parameter. Still, for a state-transition mutation the description should say what happens when the agent is already active (given idempotentHint=true) and whether permissions are needed.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema (e.g. where to obtain agent_id), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('reactivate' + 'agent') and implicitly contrasts with the sibling deactivate_agent. It is clear what the tool does, though it offers no explicit sibling differentiation beyond the name.

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 phrase 'a deactivated agent' implies a precondition, giving some implied usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. update_agent for other state changes), and no statement about what happens if the agent is already active.

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