Activate Interceptor (Generic)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'activate' but doesn't disclose what activation entails (e.g., starts traffic interception, requires specific permissions, may affect system performance). It hints at parameter validation issues but doesn't explain risks or behavioral traits like side effects, rate limits, 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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, the second provides crucial usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core function and efficiently addresses the most important contextual information.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers purpose and usage guidelines well but lacks behavioral details (what activation does, side effects) and output expectations. Given the complexity of activating interceptors with custom options, more context would be helpful.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it implies 'id' refers to an interceptor and 'options' are interceptor-specific, but doesn't provide examples or clarify semantics like what interceptor IDs look like or common option patterns.

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 purpose: 'activate any interceptor by ID with custom options'. It specifies the verb ('activate'), resource ('interceptor'), and mechanism ('by ID with custom options'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'deactivate_interceptor' or 'list_interceptors' beyond mentioning dedicated tools for specific interceptor types.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use the dedicated tools (intercept_chrome, intercept_docker_container, etc.) when possible for better parameter validation.' This clearly states a preference for sibling tools in specific cases, making it easy for an agent to choose appropriately.

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