domain_sieve_activate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds the important behavioral trait that only one script can be active, which implies activating a new one may deactivate the previous. However, it does not explain the exact consequences (e.g., error vs. replacement), permissions required, or return behavior, leaving room for 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and object. It contains no filler and every word adds value, making it highly concise and appropriately structured.

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?

This is a simple activation tool with three parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core action and the key constraint, which is sufficient for basic understanding. It omits details like return values or error cases, but for a straightforward operation, the level of completeness is adequate.

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?

The input schema already covers all three parameters with clear descriptions (domain, alias_id, script_id), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb (Activate) and clearly identifies the resource (Sieve filtering script for an alias) and a key constraint (only one can be active). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like domain_sieve_get/update/delete and sieve_script_activate, which operate on different scopes or actions.

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 by specifying the tool is for an alias and notes the exclusivity constraint, which implies the use case of activating a script where only one may be active. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like sieve_script_activate or domain_sieve_create, so it falls short of a 5.

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