activate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that activation 'Grants 100M KRW for simulated trading,' which is a useful behavioral trait (resource allocation). However, it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a one-time or repeatable operation, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the action and a key benefit. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with no parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is partially complete. It explains the core action and a reward, but lacks details on return values, error handling, or side effects, which are important for an activation tool in a financial simulation context.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to document. This meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool, though it doesn't compensate for any schema gaps (none exist).

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 purpose: 'Activate your pex.bot account by registering this device.' It specifies the verb ('activate'), resource ('pex.bot account'), and action ('registering this device'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'register' or 'join_autonomous', which might have overlapping activation-related functions.

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 implies usage context: it's for activating an account on a specific device, which suggests it should be used during initial setup or device registration. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'register' or 'join_autonomous', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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