activate_user_directive

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

Annotations are minimal (no readOnlyHint, no destructiveHint, etc.), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool sets status and timestamp, and explicitly states that deployment is handled elsewhere, adding behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is only two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core action and immediately follows with an important caveat. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main action and a key non-action. It could mention return value or error conditions, but is mostly complete for its complexity level.

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 coverage is 100% and the description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's description for directive_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the parameter is well-defined in 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?

The description clearly states the verb (Set), resource (directive status), and scope (to 'active' and timestamp). It also explicitly distinguishes from a related action (does not deploy services), differentiating it from other directive workflow tools.

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 provides clear context by stating what the tool does NOT do ('Does NOT deploy services'), giving a when-not-to-use hint. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling deactivate_user_directive or other alternatives.

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