finish_activation

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It states 'Close an activation' and adds a financial consequence if skipped. However, it does not disclose what happens upon closing (e.g., whether funds are released, idempotency, or errors). It adds some context but leaves key behavioral aspects unstated.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, and the second provides critical usage guidance and rationale. Every word 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what it does and when to use it. It lacks details on edge cases (e.g., already closed activation), but these are not essential for a basic close operation. Overall, it is well-rounded for its complexity.

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 has a single parameter 'activationId' with no description (coverage 0%). The tool description does not explicitly explain the parameter or how to obtain it, leaving the agent to infer that 'activationId' refers to the activation being closed. Since the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage, this scores low.

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 tool's function: 'Close an activation after the code was used.' It uses a specific verb ('Close') and resource ('activation'), and the context 'after the code was used' clarifies its role. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'cancel_activation', which would merit a 5.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: 'Do this on every success' and explains the consequence of not doing it ('a forgotten activation holds money until it expires'). This is a clear guideline for when to use the tool, but it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, stopping 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.