zentao_activate_bug

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the mutation action, the prerequisite guard, and the dry-run behavior. It lacks details on side effects beyond reactivation, but for a bug activation tool, the key behaviors are covered.

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 sentences, each packing essential information: the purpose and a usage condition. No redundant words, efficiently structured.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, when to use, and a critical prerequisite. It could mention the return structure or confirm that the bug status changes, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting the requirement for dryRun and the default for openedBuild (implied but from schema), but does not add significantly beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 specific action ('re-activate a bug') and the condition ('when fix verification fails'). It distinguishes from siblings like zentao_resolve_bug and zentao_close_bug by focusing on reactivation after failed verification.

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 explicitly specifies when to use this tool (after fix verification fails) and notes the required environment variable ZENTAO_ALLOW_ACTIVATE_BUG=true unless dryRun=true, giving clear usage context. It does not explicitly compare to siblings but the condition implies when not to use alternatives.

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