beel_activate_by_id

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

The description elaborates on numerous operational nuances beyond the annotations: the mode is never inferred from the environment, PROD behavior depends on card-on-file, errors like 402 and 403, idempotency (no second checkout/charge, already_active flag), and the ability to cancel a pending switch-off. This is far more than the simple flags (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) provide. The only discrepancy is with idempotentHint=false, but the description accurately explains the actual idempotent-like 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?

The description is lengthy but each paragraph covers a distinct aspect: core operation, mode behavior, idempotency, and switch-off cancellation. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose. While it is thorough, it could be condensed without losing essential detail; it is not overly verbose but is on the edge of being long. Therefore, a 4 is appropriate.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description takes full responsibility for conveying expected outcomes. It covers success indicators (already_active, scheduled_deactivation_cancelled), error conditions (402, 403), and payment/checkout flow. It also explains the interplay with the nested route and idempotency. No critical behavioral aspect seems missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

Although the schema already includes detailed descriptions (coverage 67%), the description adds substantial meaning: it explains why 'environment' must be explicit and its impact on AEAT registration, the derivation and behavior of 'idempotency_key' (auto-generated vs. explicit, 24-hour collapse), and the purpose of 'success_url'/'cancel_url' including why plain string format is necessary. These insights go well beyond the schema definitions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Switches an existing company (NIF) on'. It clearly states the action and distinguishes it from the opposite operation (deactivation, evidenced by the sibling 'beel_deactivate_by_id'). The mode is explicitly clarified as being carried in the body, adding precision. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 contextual guidance: it explains the immediate vs. checkout-required behavior for TEST vs. PROD, the billing-subject requirement, and the cancellation of pending switch-offs. These conditions imply when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid using, but the tool's role is clear given the sibling list. The guidance is sufficient but not as explicit as a 'use this when...' directive.

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