activate_base_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose the functional outcome ('making it available to new subscribers') and an environmental constraint ('Disabled in read-only mode'), but it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or side effects on existing subscriptions or draft states.

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 short, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the action and effect; the second adds a necessary operational caveat. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 relatively simple 3-parameter tool with a complete input schema and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and effect well. It does not elaborate on prerequisites or lifecycle constraints, but the available schema and sibling context make the tool usable.

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 tool description does not need to restate parameters. The schema already defines product_id, base_plan_id, and package_name clearly; the description adds no additional 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Activate a subscription base plan') and immediately distinguishes the action by stating its effect: 'making it available to new subscribers.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like deactivate_base_plan and delete_base_plan.

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as deactivate_base_plan or batch_update_base_plan_states. The only operational note is 'Disabled in read-only mode,' which is a constraint rather than selection guidance.

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