Activation cockpit status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context by listing the components returned (required steps, SDK heartbeat, dispatch preflight, next best action) and clarifying it operates on the active project, which goes beyond the structured data.

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 line that includes the deprecation warning and the list of returned components. It is front-loaded with the most critical information (deprecation) and has no wasted words.

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?

Despite being deprecated, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what it returns. There is no output schema, so the description compensates by listing the components. It also clarifies the context ('active project'). It is complete enough given the tool's deprecated status.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'project_id' with description 'Optional project UUID override'. The description does not add any additional semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool is deprecated and provides a clear alternative. It also explains what the tool does: 'Unified setup posture for the active project: required steps, SDK heartbeat, dispatch preflight, and the next best action.' This gives a specific verb+resource purpose, though the deprecation might cause some confusion for agents still considering it.

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 explicit usage guidance by marking the tool as deprecated and directing agents to use the 'activation_status resource or tool on hosted MCP' instead. This is a perfect example of when-not-to-use and alternatives.

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