marketplace_activate_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention ownership requirements (beyond the schema's parameter description), error behavior if the tool is not paused, side effects, or reversibility. For a state-changing operation, this is a significant lack of transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence of 9 words. It is concise, with no wasted words, and every part contributes meaning.

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?

The tool is simple with 2 parameters and no output schema, so the description is partially adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about prerequisites (e.g., caller must be owner, tool must be paused) and potential failure modes. The schema covers ownership minimally, but the description itself is thin.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the concepts of 'paused' and 'resume accepting payments,' but it doesn't add detailed parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides for toolId and callerAddress.

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 action ('Reactivate'), the target ('a paused tool'), and the outcome ('to resume accepting payments'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like marketplace_pause_tool by describing the inverse operation.

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 phrase 'Reactivate a paused tool' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when a tool is currently paused and needs to be reactivated. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context strongly implies the appropriate usage without being misleading.

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