Activate App in Portal

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (it mutates) and idempotentHint=false, but the description doesn't disclose any additional behavioral context. It doesn't explain what happens on repeated activation, whether reactivation is safe, whether deactivation of another app is required first, or what 'optional per-portal config' does. With no output schema, the agent has no idea what the response looks like or side effects beyond what annotations declare.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose. The phrase 'optional per-portal config' is compact and adds value. Could arguably add more, but it avoids waste and gets to the point efficiently.

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 mutation tool with no annotations for behavioral nuance, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is thin. It establishes the core purpose and prerequisite relationship but leaves the agent guessing about return values, config semantics, idempotency behavior (despite openWorldHint), error conditions, and relationship to adjacent operations (install, deactivate, place_widget).

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 description must compensate for the 4 parameters. It only names 'config' as 'optional per-portal config' and implies the others but names none. The context signal of an openWorldHint true suggests config values are arbitrary and open-ended, which is partially communicated by the 'optional per-portal config' phrase, but portalRef and appKey get no semantic enrichment beyond their schema types.

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 (activate), resource (installed app), location (in a portal), and adds the purpose ('precondition for placing its widgets'). This distinguishes it from install vs uninstall vs deactivate siblings. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative but the purpose context implies the surrounding workflow.

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?

It states when to use it (as a precondition before placing widgets) which provides some workflow context. However, it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or name alternatives like kilango_install_app for first-time setup vs this for activation of an already-installed app. The precondition clause gives implied usage guidance but no explicit exclusions.

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