Activate Prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the core behavioral effect: reactivating a previously deactivated prompt makes it available for future refinement searches. It does not discuss idempotency, error behavior, or permissions, but for a simple state-change tool the main behavior is transparent.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the operation, and the second adds the purpose without redundancy that harms clarity. Key information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: state prior, state after, and purpose. The only notable omission is guidance about the inverse sibling tool or already-active prompts, but this is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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 the schema already documents the request object and required prompt_key. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

Description clearly identifies the verb (activate/reactivate), the resource (prompt), and the state transition (previously deactivated to active). It also explains why the tool exists — enabling the prompt for future refinement searches — which distinguishes it from sibling tools like refine_prompt and deactivate_prompt.

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 implies when to use it: after a prompt has been deactivated and needs to be usable again. It does not explicitly name deactivate_prompt as the inverse alternative or state exclusions, such as what happens if the prompt is already active, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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