cyd_activate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects and behavior, but it only offers the opaque label 'Action, L1' and an alias. It does not say what activating does, whether it is synchronous, or what side effects occur. Referencing cyd_launch provides only indirect behavioral information.

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 short and front-loads the machine scope before the alias and legacy note. It wastes little space, though the cryptic 'Action, L1' fragment is not very informative.

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 one-parameter alias with no output schema or annotations, the description is not complete enough on its own: it lacks actual semantics of activation, any guidance for app_id, and any consequences of the action. The alias to cyd_launch only helps if that sibling's full definition is consulted.

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 0% and the description does not mention app_id at all, so no meaning is added beyond the raw parameter name and required flag. The description should at least connect app_id to the application being activated.

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 does not directly state what cyd_activate does; it calls it 'Action, L1' and refers to cyd_launch as the equivalent. This makes the purpose inferable only through the sibling tool, which is vague. It is not a pure tautology, but it lacks a concrete verb+resource statement.

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 explicitly names cyd_launch as the canonical equivalent and says this tool is 'kept for clients written against the older name.' This tells an agent when to use this tool and implies that new clients should use cyd_launch instead.

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