Activate an Evergreen queue

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine context beyond that: activation causes future public posts to be scheduled (external, world-visible side effect) and a specific failure mode with the EVERGREEN_CONTENT_REVIEW_REQUIRED code. It does not explain what is mutated or why the operation is flagged destructive.

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 short sentences with no filler, ordered effect-first and precondition-second. Every sentence carries information an agent needs: what it does, what it causes, and what blocks it.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effect, prerequisite, and error behavior, which is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is the undisambiguated relationship with resume_evergreen_queue and the undocumented queueId source.

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?

There is one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage — queueId is typed only as an untyped string with no documentation of format or where to obtain it. The description mentions contentConfirmed on sibling tools but says nothing about queueId, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap. The only available meaning is inferred from the tool name.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Activate a ... queue') and explains the effect ('schedules future public posts'). It does not distinguish this from the sibling 'resume_evergreen_queue', which an agent could reasonably confuse with 'activating a paused queue' — the qualifier 'draft or paused' partially helps but leaves the activate-vs-resume boundary ambiguous.

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 states a concrete precondition for use — caption variants must be contentConfirmed via create_evergreen_queue or update_evergreen_queue — which is exactly the kind of gating information an agent needs before calling. It stops short of naming resume_evergreen_queue as the alternative for already-active queues, and gives no explicit when-not guidance.

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