activate_survey

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Activate') which implies a state change, but doesn't describe what activation entails (e.g., makes survey available to participants, irreversible change, requires specific permissions), nor does it mention response format or error conditions.

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 appropriately brief with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another documenting the parameter. The structure is front-loaded with the main action first. However, the second sentence could be integrated more smoothly rather than as a separate 'Args:' section.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'activate' means operationally, what state changes occur, what permissions are needed, or what the tool returns. The context signals show minimal parameter complexity, but the behavioral aspects are underspecified.

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?

The description provides the parameter name 'sid' and clarifies it's 'The survey ID', adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's basic type (integer). With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this minimal addition is sufficient to reach a baseline 4.

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 action ('Activate') and resource ('a LimeSurvey survey'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_survey' or 'set_survey_properties', which would require more specific context about what 'activate' means in this system.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_survey' or 'set_survey_properties'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., survey must exist in draft state), timing considerations, or what happens after activation.

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