activate_category

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 discloses the side effect (client receives full tool definitions on next refresh), the session scope, and the token budget guard behavior. It does not mention whether activation is reversible or if there are any side effects beyond the refresh, but the key behaviors are covered.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the action and effect, the prerequisite listing tool, and the force parameter. Front-loaded with the primary action, no fluff.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description is complete for an agent to call it correctly. It covers the action, the prerequisite, the parameter semantics, and the side effect. The only minor gap is not describing what happens after activation (e.g., whether tools are immediately available or require a refresh), but the description does mention the refresh behavior.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of force (override token budget warning) and the category format (key from list_tool_categories), which goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions. It doesn't add syntax details but the schema already provides those.

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 all tools in a category'), the resource ('category'), and the session scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the activation effect and the token budget guard, which is unique to this tool.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use list_tool_categories to see available categories and token costs, and explains the force parameter for overriding the budget guard. It implies when to use this tool (when you need tools from a category) and provides a clear alternative for listing categories.

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