reactivate_consumer_key

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

There are no annotations to cover destructive/read-only safety, so the description carries the full burden. It identifies the action as a reactivation but does not disclose what happens if the key is already active, whether the operation is idempotent, what side effects occur, or what the response looks like. This is a meaningful gap for a state-changing tool.

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?

The description is a single tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and condition. There is no repetition of the tool name and no wasted content.

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?

Given the low complexity (one required parameter, fully covered schema, no nested objects), the description is mostly sufficient to understand the tool's purpose. However, because there are no annotations and no output schema, some behavioral context—such as idempotency, permission requirements, or error conditions—would improve completeness for an agent.

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 single parameter consumer_id is fully described in the schema with its type and format, and the schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra parameter guidance, so a baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Reactivate') and a specific resource ('consumer key'), and adds the condition 'previously revoked' which distinguishes it from siblings like revoke_consumer_key, rotate_consumer_key, and toggle_consumer_key. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'previously revoked' clearly states the precondition for using the tool, so an agent knows this applies to a revoked key that needs to be active again. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that this is for reactivating, not revoking, rotating, or toggling.

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