activate_tokens

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action ('activate tokens') but doesn't explain what 'activate' means operationally (e.g., enabling tokens for distribution, setting status), whether it's idempotent, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 sized with two sentences: a purpose statement and parameter documentation. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, though the parameter section could be more integrated. No wasted words, but structure is basic.

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 tool's complexity (mutation operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'activate' entails, expected outcomes, error conditions, or how it interacts with sibling tools, making it inadequate 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?

The description adds minimal parameter semantics: it mentions 'sid' as 'The survey ID' which matches the schema's title 'Sid' and type 'integer'. With 0% schema description coverage, this provides basic clarification but doesn't compensate fully for the coverage gap (e.g., no format, range, or source guidance).

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 tokens') and target resource ('for a LimeSurvey survey'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_participants' or 'invite_participants' which might involve token management, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., survey must exist), exclusions, or relationships to other tools like 'add_participants' that might handle token creation or activation differently.

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