kernel_extensions_activate

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

With no annotations supplied, the description still discloses that this is a state-changing operation on a previously idle extension and explains the audit/consent rationale for the separate tool - useful context beyond the name. It does not cover reversibility (the disable sibling), behavior on an id that does not require activation, idempotency of repeat calls, or required permissions, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and its precondition, followed by the equivalence and design rationale. No restatement of the tool name and no filler.

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 low-complexity one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, and rationale adequately. The remaining gaps - what 'id' refers to and what happens on success or precondition failure - are ones an agent would need before calling it reliably, so it is only minimally sufficient.

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% and the single 'id' parameter carries only a type, with no description in the schema and nothing in the prose clarifying whether it is an extension identifier, a bundle id, or a manifest name. The only parameter is therefore effectively undocumented, and the description does not compensate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Activate an installed-but-idle extension') and narrows the scope with a concrete machine-readable predicate (manifest.requires_activation=true). It also positions itself against the sibling kernel_extensions_enable by declaring equivalence only 'for that subset', so an agent can choose between the two without opening either schema.

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 precondition manifest.requires_activation=true is an explicit when-to-use gate, and naming enable() as the equivalent for that subset implicitly routes other extensions to that sibling. It stops short of an explicit 'do not use this if the extension does not require activation' exclusion or a note on what to do when the precondition fails, so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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