activate_survey

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

The description adds that activation 'creates the responses table,' which provides some behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects like whether existing data is affected, permissions needed, or reversibility. Annotations already indicate destructiveness, so the description adds moderate value.

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 sentence with a parenthetical, covering the core purpose and outcome efficiently. No extraneous information.

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 simple activation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains what activation does, the parameters are documented in the schema, and the return value is mentioned. Minor gaps like the exact format of the activation result or error conditions are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add further meaning (e.g., default values or constraints for userActivationSettings). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already captures all parameter semantics.

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 (activate a survey) and the specific outcome (creates the responses table). It differentiates from sibling tools like get, set, copy, delete, etc., which are distinct operations.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites (e.g., survey must exist, not already activated) or when not to use it (e.g., if survey has responses or other constraints).

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