vat_code_reactivate

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: reactivation only affects future document selection, and 'posted lines never depended on the flag' reassures that historical postings are untouched. Annotations already cover idempotency and the destructive flag, so the description's contribution is the scope-of-effect statement; it doesn't mention auth requirements or what happens if the code isn't archived.

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, zero filler: the action and its effect come first, the clarification about past postings second. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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-parameter state toggle with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the important semantics (effect on new documents, no impact on posted lines). The only real gap is that neither parameter is explained despite 0% schema coverage.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it says nothing about either parameter. 'code' and 'workspaceId' are guessable from their names, but whether 'code' is the VAT code identifier or a numeric code string, and whether workspaceId defaults, is left entirely to inference.

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?

Specific verb + resource (reactivate an archived tax code) plus the concrete effect: it appears again on new documents. It also names the sibling it mirrors (vat_code_deactivate), so an agent can distinguish it from vat_code_upsert / vat_code_deactivate without opening schemas.

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 'so it appears again on new documents' clause gives the situation that selects this tool, and 'the exact mirror of vat_code_deactivate' implies the pairing. No explicit exclusion or prerequisite (e.g. that the code must currently be archived), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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