license_activate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the significant side effect that activation applies to every server in the bundle at once, but it does not mention reversibility, failure modes, or what happens if a license is already active.

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?

One compact sentence delivers the action, scope, and format constraint without filler. The key verb 'Activate' leads immediately.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this description is nearly sufficient: it tells the agent what to pass and the activation scope. Missing details like post-activation verification or irreversibility are useful but not required to invoke it correctly.

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 covers the 'key' parameter at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the specific MCPL1.xxx.yyy format, giving the agent extra validation guidance beyond the schema.

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 is specific: it names the verb 'Activate', the resource 'Pro license key', and the scope 'every server in the bundle at once'. It also supplies the key format, making it easy to distinguish from the related license_status sibling.

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 trigger context is clear: use this tool when a Pro license key needs to be applied to the whole server bundle. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like license_status or state exclusions, so it misses a 5.

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