activate_bon

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

With no annotations, the description does carry the important disclosure that this mutates state ('Changes account state') and that confirm=true is required, which is real behavioral value. It does not say whether activation is reversible, what permissions or prerequisites apply, or what effect activation has on the bon beyond state change.

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 compact sentences with zero waste: the action first, then the state-change warning and the confirm requirement. Nothing is repeated from the schema or padded.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with an output schema available, the essentials are present: what it does, that it mutates account state, and the confirm gate. Remaining gaps (reversibility, permissions) are secondary given the small surface area.

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%, so the description must compensate. It successfully explains the meaning of confirm (a required safety acknowledgement, despite the schema defaulting it to false), but adds nothing about bon_id's format or provenance beyond its name.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Activate a Cumulus bon'), which is immediately distinguishable from mutating siblings like redeem_cumulus_bon or deactivate_coupon by the word 'activate'. It stops short of explicitly naming the closest sibling (redeem_cumulus_bon), so full differentiation is left to inference.

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?

It states a hard precondition ('needs confirm=true') but gives no guidance on when to choose this over redeem_cumulus_bon or when not to activate a bon at all. Usage is implied by the verb rather than explained.

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