activate_field

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('activate/focus') without explaining effects (e.g., whether the field becomes interactive, whether session state is required, or any side effects). No details on session_id or search_by_title behavior are provided.

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 with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it sacrifices detail for brevity. It earns a high score for structure but not for completeness.

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 simplicity and lack of output schema, the description should clarify usage semantics, especially for session_id and search_by_title. It also doesn't explain what 'activate' means operationally. This leaves gaps an agent would need to resolve experimentally.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It partially covers field_name and search_by_title ('by name or title') but omits session_id entirely and doesn't clarify the default behavior of search_by_title or how field_name is resolved. This is insufficient for the 3 parameters.

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 a specific verb ('activate/focus') and resource ('form field'), and hints at the lookup method ('by name or title'). It is distinguishable from siblings like focus_object (which targets generic objects) and set_field_value (which sets values), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description implies it's for focusing form fields but doesn't contrast with other focus tools like focus_object or toggle_field. An agent would have to infer the right context without clear direction.

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