activate_tsd

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two genuinely useful facts: the token is a sensitive credential never logged or surfaced in errors, and success returns 200 with an empty body. It omits idempotency behavior, what happens if TSD is already active, required permissions, and error semantics, so coverage is partial rather than rich.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with the action and resource, each sentence carrying distinct information (purpose, credential handling, response contract). No filler, though the credential paragraph could be tightened.

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?

It covers the credential contract and success response, and an output schema exists so return values need not be re-explained. It still leaves the relationship to the sibling activate_educloud, preconditions, and failure modes unaddressed for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the token is a credential authorizing activation for the named project and must be protected like an OAuth2 access token. That materially clarifies the token's role and handling beyond its one-line schema description.

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?

States a specific verb (Activate) and a specific, unusual resource (TSD / Services for Sensitive Data) scoped to a form, which most agents would not confuse with generic form operations. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'activate_educloud', which appears to be a parallel activation path, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: it does not say when TSD activation is required, what preconditions must hold, or how to choose between this and activate_educloud. The only contextual hint is that the token 'authorizes activating TSD for the named project', which is about mechanics, not selection.

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