activate_licence

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

The description states 'Activate a licence key' which implies a state change (mutation), but the annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, indicating the tool is read-only. This is a direct contradiction. Additionally, the description does not disclose other behavioral traits such as potential failures or network usage.

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 three concise sentences that front-load the purpose, then add exceptions and non-effects. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality. However, it lacks details about success/error behavior, and the annotation contradiction undermines completeness. Given the high schema coverage, it is minimally adequate but has a clear gap.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'key' with a description. The description adds a concrete example ('TV-PRO-<uuid>') and the context that Free users do not need a key, which clarifies parameter usage and semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'activate' and the resource 'Pro/Team/Owner licence key locally,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like licence_status or edition_limits. It also clarifies that Free users do not need a key, and notes that the tool does not affect the browser or chart, differentiating it from many browser-based sibling tools.

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 clear context: use this tool for paid license activation, and note that Free requires no key. It implicitly suggests not to use this for browser or chart actions by stating 'Does not touch the browser or the chart.' However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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