activate_station

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the operation's side effects: it triggers a playlist export and starts the station on a streaming server. It does not cover permissions/auth requirements, idempotency, or behavior when the station is already running beyond the 'not running' qualifier.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the side effects. Zero wasted words.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description is nearly complete: it explains what activation does and the conditions under which it starts the stream. Only failure/return behavior and permission requirements are left unspecified.

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 coverage is 100% for the single station_id parameter, so the schema already documents the input fully. The description adds no format, constraint, or semantic detail about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (activate) and resource (station), and goes further by explaining the mechanism: it triggers a playlist export and starts the stream. An agent can clearly distinguish it from read/inspection siblings like get_station or get_station_state, though no sibling is explicitly named or contrasted.

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 conditional 'if assigned and not running' implies the preconditions under which the tool acts, which is useful implicit guidance. However, it never states when to prefer activation over other station operations, nor what to do if preconditions are unmet — usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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