set_archive_rule_active

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

Annotations establish write/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, so the description doesn't need to re-declare safety. It adds genuine extra context the annotations lack: the confirmation gate and the dependency on an active Data Management Policy, which materially affects whether a call will succeed. It stops short of saying what error surfaces when the policy is inactive.

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 compact sentences plus a write tag; the action is front-loaded and every clause carries information (permission gate, policy prerequisite). Slightly terse for a mutation, but no filler.

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 two-state toggle with annotations covering the safety profile and the schema specifying the confirmation value, the description supplies the key prerequisites an agent needs. Missing only failure-mode detail, which is minor given no output schema.

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?

Schema coverage is only 33% (only `confirmation` is described, with the 'I_UNDERSTAND' value). The description ties confirmation to the activate case but adds nothing about `sys_id` or the `active` boolean beyond what the parameter names imply, so it does not fully 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 pair (activate/deactivate) and resource (archive rule), which is far better than a generic 'update'. The distinct name and the sibling set (create_archive_rule, set_destroy_rule_active, set_cleanup_rule_active) make the target obvious, though the description never explicitly names those siblings to route away from them.

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 surfaces two real preconditions for the activate path — confirmation and an active Data Management Policy — which is useful context for choosing to call it. However, it gives no guidance on the deactivate path's requirements or on when to pick this over set_destroy_rule_active/set_cleanup_rule_active, leaving usage largely implied by the name.

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