bonuses_activate

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries a lower burden. It does not contradict them ('activate' is consistent with a non-read-only mutation), but it adds no behavioral context — no irreversibility warning, no auth/permission requirements, no side effects, no indication of what state the bonus must be in to activate.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency — two fragments, one of which is a bare endpoint string that duplicates what a caller would otherwise infer.

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?

A destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and no parameter documentation needs the description to explain side effects, preconditions, and failure modes. None of that is present, so the definition is far from complete for the operation's risk level.

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?

There is one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the schema only declares it as a number. The path template '{id}' is the sole clue that it identifies the bonus, which is a small gain over the schema, but nothing is said about where to obtain the id or what happens with an invalid or already-active bonus.

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 restates the tool name ('Bonuses activate') and adds only the raw HTTP route 'POST /bonuses/{id}/activate'. That route at least confirms the resource is a bonus identified by id, but it never says what activation actually does, what state change occurs, or how this differs from the sibling 'bonuses_activate_bonus_case'.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of when activation is appropriate versus not, and no reference to any alternative tool. The agent must guess entirely from the name.

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