set_app_active

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds only the serialization caveat ('JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings') and says nothing about what deactivating an app does (e.g., whether it stops running work) or what state is returned. Marginal value beyond the annotation set.

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 fragments, front-loaded with the action and endpoint, so it is compact. But 'set App Active' duplicates the tool name, and the 'JSON-encoded string fields' caveat is generic boilerplate that does not apply to this body's single boolean field.

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 destructive mutation with a nested body object and no output schema, the description leaves key facts unstated: what the required 'active' boolean controls, the effect of disabling an app, and the response shape. Annotations cover safety, but the tool's core semantics are missing.

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 carries the full burden, yet it only says 'supply API fields in body' without naming the required 'active' boolean or explaining app_id. The serialization note is helpful but does not map to any actual param in this schema (body contains only a boolean). Significant compensation gap for a nested-object schema.

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 verb and resource ('set App Active') plus the concrete endpoint (POST /apps/{app_id}/active), so the agent knows it toggles an app's active flag. However, the phrasing largely restates the tool name and never explains what 'active' means for an app or how it differs from siblings like update_app or get_app. It is adequate but not distinguishing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this vs update_app, delete_app, or the analogous set_global_runner_active/set_project_runner_active tools. The closest thing to guidance is a body-encoding note, which is a parameter hint rather than a when-to-use rule.

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