Activate contract product

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

Annotations already declare the operation is not read-only and not destructive, and the description adds the behavioral effect of 'marks the service active.' While consistent, the description does not disclose additional traits such as idempotency, required permissions, or downstream effects, which would be valuable context beyond the annotations.

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 a single, clear sentence that conveys the purpose and scope without unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded and earns its place.

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 low complexity, presence of annotations, and full parameter schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the core action and the target state, but could briefly mention reversibility or downstream provisioning to be fully comprehensive for a state-changing tool.

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?

The input schema fully describes both parameters ('Contract UUID' and 'Contract product UUID') with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so it does not go beyond the baseline established by the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Activate') and resource ('contract product'), and clarifies the scope by stating it applies to 'pending/inactive' items and 'marks the service active.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_contract_product or set_contract_product_renewal.

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 indicates the tool is for activating pending/inactive contract products, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where this tool should not be used, so it falls short of a 5.

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