activate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool verifies with the hosted engine and saves the key, and that all hosted tools become available afterward. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens if the key is invalid, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences with the primary action front-loaded. It avoids fluff and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and effect.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, the source of the key, and the consequence of activation. It does not mention return values or edge cases, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does provide a hint about the key format ('le_...') and indicates it can be either a subscription key or a personal MCP link, but it does not fully explain validation rules or how to obtain a valid key. This adds some meaning beyond the bare schema but is not comprehensive.

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 tool's action: activating a subscription key or personal MCP link, with verification and saving. It specifies the resource type and effect (making hosted tools available), and is distinct from sibling tools like search_sites or verify_link, which have different purposes.

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 clear context by mentioning the purchase success page as the source of the key, implying the tool is used after purchase. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though no direct alternative exists among siblings, so the context is sufficient.

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