negative_support_activate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the token source and process scope, which adds useful context. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether activation is persistent, overwrites a previous license, or requires a restart. This is a gap for a state-changing operation, but the information provided is at least minimally adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action. No redundant or filler content. Every sentence adds meaningful information: what the tool does, how to get the token, and an env var alternative. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the action, token format, and env var alternative. However, it does not mention whether activation affects other tools or the process lifetime, leaving a minor gap. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 schema already provides a description for the token parameter (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the token format ('ns_live_*'), the source (same as CLI), and an alternative mechanism (env var) that may override or replace the parameter. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'License token' description.

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), the resource (negative.support license), and the scope (for this MCP process). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'negative_support_deactivate' by indicating the opposite action, and from 'negative_support_generate' by focusing on activation of an existing license.

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 gives concrete context for use, such as 'Same ns_live_* token as the CLI' and the alternative env var NEGATIVE_SUPPORT_TOKEN. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the sibling tools (deactivate/generate) make the intended use clear. It lacks explicit exclusion criteria but provides practical usage guidance.

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