vat_code_reactivate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a useful behavioral nuance ('posted lines never depended on the flag'), but omits other transparency aspects like error conditions, idempotency, permissions, or what happens if the code is already active. This is a partial disclosure.

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 sentences with no fluff. The core action and effect are front-loaded, and the mirror note adds context without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple mutation.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description lacks parameter documentation and error conditions. It covers the purpose and a key behavioral note, but without annotations or an output schema, the agent has limited guidance on usage prerequisites and return behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter (workspaceId or code). The names are self-explanatory, but no format, constraints, or usage details are provided, leaving the agent to guess. The description adds no parameter-level value.

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 action (reactivate), the resource (archived tax code), and the effect (appears again on new documents). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling vat_code_deactivate by calling itself the exact mirror, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies when to use it (as the inverse of vat_code_deactivate) but does not explicitly state exclusions or conditions, such as only being applicable to archived codes or when a reactivation is desired. Still, the mirror reference provides clear contextual guidance.

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