wafle_agents_activate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the effect (status change to active, eligibility for triggers) and importantly notes that it is a no-op if already active, indicating idempotency. This is transparent for a simple state-transition tool, though it does not discuss any prerequisites or side effects beyond the trigger eligibility.

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 short sentences: the first states the action and effect, the second adds important idempotency info. Every word earns its place, and the essential information is front-loaded.

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 2-parameter activation tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, why it matters, and the no-op behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly in context, though it could mention what response to expect.

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 description coverage is 100% (both `slug` and `agent_slug` have descriptive details), so the schema already documents parameter meaning. The description itself does not add further parameter semantics beyond the tool's purpose, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 an agent'), the specific state change (moves status to `active`), and the consequence (eligible for scheduled/event triggers). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wafle_agents_pause and wafle_agents_create.

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 clear context: this tool is used to enable an agent for scheduled/event triggers. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is unambiguous and implies its role in the agent lifecycle.

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