activate_domain

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the intended effect (making tools available) and implies a state change. Still, it doesn't mention what happens if the domain is already active, whether activation is idempotent, or any side effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Three short sentences with no redundancy: the first states the core action, the second gives the accepted domain options, and the third states a relevant follow-up action. The most important info is front-loaded, and every sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, valid inputs, and a suggested way to verify state. The main gap is the absence of what happens if the domain is already activated, or whether activation affects the current session, but for this simple scope it is largely complete.

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% — the schema already provides the parameter description and enum values. The description repeats the list of valid domains, adding some practical context, but it doesn't introduce new semantic meaning beyond what the input schema already conveys. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantic load.

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 states a specific verb ('activate'), a clear resource ('a domain'), and the observable effect ('to make its tools available'). It also lists the valid domain values, making it unambiguous. The sibling deactivate_domain provides the inverse operation, so an agent can distinguish this tool without opening the 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 description gives clear context: activation is the step that enables tools, and it explicitly tells the agent to call list_domains to check current status. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with deactivate_domain or state when activation is unnecessary, but the purpose is evident enough for correct selection.

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