Reactivate Product

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and repeat-call profile is fully covered without the description. The description's only additional behavioral fact is that the target must currently be deactivated, which is modest added value.

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?

Five words, front-loaded with the verb and resource, zero filler or restated boilerplate. Nothing to trim and nothing misplaced.

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 lifecycle toggle with no output schema and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is nearly sufficient. The only missing element is any note about what happens on an already-active product or which sibling to use instead.

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?

There is a single parameter ('id') with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format, range, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

Specific verb ('reactivate') plus resource ('product'), and the qualifier 'deactivated' tells the agent the preconditions state of the target. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as deactivate_product, delete_product, or update_product, so the agent must infer which of the product lifecycle tools to pick.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'deactivated' suggests this applies to products in a deactivated state, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative (e.g. use update_product instead if the product is already active). Adequate but with a clear gap.

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