reactivate_thesis

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

Annotations indicate this tool modifies data (readOnlyHint=false) and is not destructive. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the verb 'reactivate', so it meets the minimum but lacks details like side effects or permission requirements.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. While it lacks structured elements like examples or notes, it is appropriately sized for a simple action.

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?

Given the simple parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate for a basic reactivation tool. However, it could mention prerequisites (e.g., thesis must be invalidated) or confirm the result, making it minimally complete.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the action ('reactivate') and the resource ('thesis'), specifying it applies to previously invalidated theses. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'invalidate_thesis' and 'delete_thesis'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the thesis must be invalidated) or situations where reactivation is inappropriate.

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