Activate Agent for Widget

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

Annotations already declare idempotent and open-world; the description adds that it sets specific configuration values and explains the route selection based on auth type. It also clarifies that it is required before widget can answer, which is key context. It does not contradict annotations.

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 relatively long but well-structured with sections for preconditions, auth, errors, and related tools. It front-loads the primary purpose and uses clear headers implied by punctuation. While comprehensive, every sentence contributes to the agent's decision-making, so no waste.

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 no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, auth requirements, error codes, and next steps. It also clarifies the distinction between API-created and dashboard-created apps regarding chatJid. Together with the rich input schema, an agent has enough to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and each parameter's description in the schema already explains purpose and defaults (e.g., appId defaults, agentId source, chatJid requirement). The tool description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Make an agent the app's ACTIVE widget bot' and pinpoints the exact effect (setting App.defaultBotInstanceId and botStatus). It also connects to the consuming endpoint and frames the requirement clearly. This distinguishes it from related tools like invite-to-chat or create-agent because it focuses on activation for widget.

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 gives explicit preconditions: 'the agent was invited into a room of this app with ethora-agent-invite-to-chat', and it names the sequence of tools. It also specifies auth modes and error scenarios, and points to next steps (widget-embed-snippet). This is thorough guidance for when to use and what is required.

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