activate_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a permission requirement ('[requires: users.activate]') and implies a state change, but it does not explain preconditions (e.g., what if the user is not suspended), side effects, or error behavior. This is adequate but leaves some gaps typical for a simple 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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the permission requirement and purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally complete: it states the purpose and permission. However, it lacks interaction context with siblings (e.g., that suspend_user is the reverse) and does not mention error conditions or what constitutes a successful activation. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0% for the single 'id' parameter, and the description does not compensate by explaining what 'id' refers to. While it's inferable from the tool name that 'id' is a user ID, the description adds no explicit parameter semantics beyond the schema's bare type definition.

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 specific action ('Re-activate') and resource ('a previously suspended user'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like suspend_user and remove_user. The verb+resource structure is unambiguous.

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 'previously suspended user' clearly indicates when this tool is appropriate (for suspended users). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage. A minor gap is the lack of explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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