Pay: offers activate

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

Annotations only declare the write/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false); the description adds substantive behavior beyond that, noting the activation is 'still subject to its validity dates and caps' and that it reverses a pause. It doesn't cover idempotency or authorization needs, but it adds real context over the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the action and effect, then the routing guidance. No filler or restated metadata.

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 single-parameter state-change tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers effect, constraints, and alternatives adequately. Auth requirements and failure modes are the only minor omissions.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'id' including how to find it ('Find it with pay_offers_list'). The description adds nothing further about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ('Activate a paused offer') and immediately specifies the effect ('Sets an offer's status to active'). An agent can distinguish it from pay_offers_pause, pay_offers_update, and pay_offers_delete from the description alone.

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?

Explicitly names the sibling it reverses ('Use it to undo `pay_offers_pause`') and gives a second concrete use case ('reopen an expired offer'). The condition selecting this tool over its alternatives is stated rather than inferred.

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