activate_chaos

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds a genuinely important side effect not captured there: activating one scenario switches the others off. It still omits error behavior for unknown scenario_id or unreachable WireMock, and whether the state persists across restarts.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the exclusivity constraint is packed into the parenthetical rather than padded out.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is the complete absence of parameter guidance for a 3-param tool with 0% schema coverage, which leaves the agent guessing on harness_dir format and scenario_id values.

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% and the description never mentions harness_dir, scenario_id, or wiremock_url. At best it hints at a harness and a scenario, but gives no format, expected values, or default behavior (wiremock_url default is only in the schema).

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 (turn on) and resource (one chaos scenario in the harness's running WireMock), which clearly separates it from the sibling deactivate_chaos. The parenthetical clarifies the exclusive activation semantics, though it does not explicitly name the sibling.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: activating one scenario implicitly means using deactivate_chaos (or activating another) to turn it off. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or prerequisite guidance (e.g., harness must already be generated/running).

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