sieve_script_activate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that alias credentials are required and that only one script can be active, but it does not explain what happens if another script is already active (e.g., auto-deactivation vs error) or the effects of activation. This is partial disclosure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple activation tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and a key constraint. However, it misses important context such as return value expectations, error behavior when another script is active, and whether the activation is reversible, which would be helpful given the absence of annotations.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning; it simply refers to 'alias credentials' and 'script' without elaborating on the exact parameter usage beyond what the schema already documents.

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') with a clear resource ('a Sieve script for an alias') and adds a distinguishing constraint ('only one can be active'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like sieve_script_create or domain_sieve_activate.

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?

It implies usage context by requiring alias credentials and noting the exclusivity constraint, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives (e.g., domain_sieve_activate) or mention any preconditions beyond credentials. Some guidance is present, but exclusions are absent.

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