sassy_hooks_activate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the primary behavior—'Returns the full expert playbook'—and describes the playbook's content. However, it does not mention potential side effects of activation (e.g., whether the hook remains active, if changes are persistent, or if there are permissions required). This is a moderate gap.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence immediately states the action and return value. Subsequent sentences add necessary context about the playbook and the list tool without redundancy. Every sentence contributes to understanding, making it highly efficient.

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 an output schema present, the description covers the essential information: what it does, what it returns, and how to determine valid input values. It is largely complete, though a brief mention of the effect of 'activation' on hook state would make it fully comprehensive.

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 'hook_name' parameter, so the description must compensate. It adds value by instructing 'Use sassy_hooks_list to see available hooks', which informs how to populate the parameter. However, it does not provide examples, formats, or constraints beyond this, leaving the parameter's semantics partially underspecified.

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 tool's function: 'Activate an operational hook. Returns the full expert playbook.' This uses a specific verb ('activate') and resource ('operational hook'), and it distinguishes the tool from its sibling by referencing 'sassy_hooks_list', implying activation is the complementary operation to 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 provides clear context for use: 'Use sassy_hooks_list to see available hooks' indicates a prerequisite step and indirectly suggests using this tool after listing. It also explains the playbook's utility in guiding tasks. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like deactivate or suggest.

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