ps_config_activate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'activate' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, permission requirements, side effects, or what 'registered' implies. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 implied by 'activate' (likely a mutation), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what activation does, expected outcomes, or error conditions, making it insufficient for safe and effective use.

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. It doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema—no explanation of what 'overlayId' represents, its format, or how to obtain it. With one undocumented parameter, this is inadequate.

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 'Activate a registered policy overlay' clearly states the verb (activate) and resource (policy overlay), but it's somewhat vague about what 'activate' entails operationally. It doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like ps_config_set or ps_config_get, which might involve policy configuration in different ways.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like ps_config_set, ps_config_get, and ps_config_import, the description doesn't clarify if activation is for enabling a policy, applying changes, or another purpose, leaving usage context unclear.

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