catia_set_relation_active

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation behavior is expected. The description adds useful functional context by explaining what deactivation enables (manual control of a parameter), but it does not disclose further side effects, persistence, or implications for rules. This is adequate but not 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?

Two compact sentences front-load the core action and then provide the key use-case insight. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the schema or title.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides the essential domain context. An agent knows what to call, why it matters, and what the boolean parameter accomplishes.

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%: 'name' is documented as the relation name and 'active' as true/false. The description reinforces that these apply to formulas/rules but does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair: 'Activate or deactivate a formula or rule.' It also explains the practical consequence of deactivation, making the tool's purpose both actionable and distinct from relation creation, deletion, or listing.

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 description clearly conveys when to use this tool: deactivate a formula when you want to set its target parameter by hand again. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the usage context is unambiguous enough for an agent to decide.

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