Reactivate a deactivated DTP after transformation changes, preserving its content and leaving the XML unchanged.
Activate a DTP — typically to re-activate a DTP that a transformation change deactivated. Locks → activates → unlocks; the DTP content is NOT changed. Use bw_dtp_save_and_activate only when the DTP XML was actually modified.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it delivers the key side effects: 'Locks → activates → unlocks' and 'the DTP content is NOT changed.' It does not cover error cases or return behavior, but the core non-destructive activation behavior is clearly disclosed.
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?
Three concise sentences: purpose, behavioral sequence, and sibling routing. There is no fluff, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.
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?
The description covers purpose, behavior, and when to use the alternative tool, which is sufficient for a one-parameter activation operation. It omits explicit id semantics and output/error details, but those gaps are relatively minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 only parameter, id, has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explicitly states that id is the DTP's identifier. It is strongly implied by the tool name and 'Activate a DTP,' but the description does not directly add parameter-level meaning.
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 states a specific verb ('Activate') and resource ('DTP'), and immediately distinguishes itself from bw_dtp_save_and_activate by clarifying that content is NOT changed. This makes its role clear even among many DTP-related siblings.
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 explicitly names the alternative tool (bw_dtp_save_and_activate) and the exact condition that should trigger that alternative: only when the DTP XML was actually modified. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.