cdp_reactivate_provision_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Reactivate' implies a state-changing mutation, the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the instance isn't deactivated, if there are rate limits, side effects, or what the response looks like. The HTTP method (POST) is mentioned but adds little value without context.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. The HTTP endpoint inclusion, while not adding much value for an AI agent, doesn't detract from the brevity.

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?

Given the complexity (a state-changing mutation tool), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, but presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter meanings, or usage context. The output schema may help with return values, but the description itself leaves significant gaps for safe and correct tool 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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's implied by the URL path ('{id}' maps to 'instance_id'). It doesn't explain what 'instance_id' or 'tenant_id' represent, their formats, or when 'tenant_id' is required versus optional. With 2 parameters and 0% coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 action ('Reactivate') and the resource ('a deactivated instance'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cdp_deactivate_provision_instance' and 'cdp_provision_instance_action' by focusing on reactivation specifically. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other instance management tools beyond the verb choice.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the instance must be deactivated), when-not-to-use scenarios, or direct alternatives among the many sibling tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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