reactivate_clientReactivates a deactivated client record in e-arveldaja using the provided ID, enabling continued financial management for that client.
Reactivate a deactivated client
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Object ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.29.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.25.3v0.25.2v0.18.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile: readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this — nothing about required client state, permissions, or side effects. With annotations carrying the load, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
A single efficient sentence, front-loaded with the action. No waste, though it is minimally structured with no additional routing or state info.
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?
Adequate for a simple one-param state-change tool with full schema coverage and annotations, but leaves gaps: no prerequisite that the client must be deactivated, no error or edge-case guidance.
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% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'Object ID'. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?
Clear verb+resource: reactivates a deactivated client. Distinguishable from deactivate_client and delete_client by the specific verb, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling for contrast.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to use this vs. other client-state tools like deactivate_client or delete_client. The agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.