license_activate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the action ('activa') without disclosing side effects, idempotency, or requirements. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap—the agent cannot anticipate what activating a license entails.

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 one sentence, includes the essential verb and object, and omits extraneous detail. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a single-parameter operation.

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?

With a single parameter fully documented in the schema and a straightforward operation, the description is mostly sufficient. However, the lack of output schema and behavior details (e.g., irreversible, triggers a server-side change) leaves the agent without information about consequences, making it only minimally complete.

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 describes the license_key parameter with format, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds the context that it applies to 'CommerceHub Pro o Business' keys, clarifying which key types are valid beyond the raw format.

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 the verb 'Activa' (activate) with a clear resource ('license key de CommerceHub Pro o Business'), which precisely identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'license_status' by implying activation rather than checking status.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus checking license status or viewing plans. It does not state prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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