activate_web_interview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required permissions (fieldwork_write or admin_write) and the relationship to the HQ endpoint, which is useful auth/scoping context. It does not describe side effects, idempotency, whether the questionnaire must already be configured for web interviews, or what happens if web interviews are already active.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff; the core action is first and the authorization constraint is second. Every clause carries useful information.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description includes the key scope and permission context. Still, it leaves ambiguity about the activation effect, preconditions, and the profile parameter, so it is not fully complete for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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 only 50%, with the required questionnaire_identity documented in the schema and the optional profile left as a bare string. The description adds no parameter-level information and does not compensate for the undocumented profile parameter.

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 identifies a specific action (activate), a precise object (questionnaire-level web interviews), and the mechanism (same HQ endpoint used by Web Interview Settings). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like deactivate_web_interview and get_questionnaire_web_interview_status.

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 permission requirement gives a precondition, and 'same HQ endpoint used by Web Interview Settings' implies the programmatic equivalent of that UI action. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as deactivate_web_interview or when activation is appropriate.

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