aiworkhub_manager_skill_activate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses fail-closed semantics, that the threshold is enforced unchanged, and precisely what happens on failure (registry reason returned, stored record untouched). It omits what state changes on success, permissions required, and idempotency.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation class and verb, followed by the relevant behavioral guarantee. Little waste, though the second sentence is dense enough that a slight trim would not hurt.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the failure path is well covered. The remaining hole is parameter meaning for a mutation tool with two undocumented required inputs, which is material for correct invocation.

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?

Both parameters (identity, version) have 0% schema description coverage and the description says nothing about them. An agent must guess whether 'identity' is a skill key, slug, or ID, and what 'version' refers to; the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('activate a proposed skill') and scopes it as a MANAGER WRITE operation. Alongside siblings like skill_propose and skill_add_evidence, the lifecycle position is inferable, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 evidence-gating condition implies when activation will succeed, which is useful usage context. However, it never states the alternative path (e.g. add more evidence via skill_add_evidence and retry) when the threshold is unmet, leaving the agent to infer next steps.

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