sieve_activate_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the currently active script is replaced and remains stored but inactive, which is important mutation context. It does not mention required permissions, error behavior for missing scripts, or the response shape, so it stops short of full transparency.

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, front-loaded with the primary effect and followed by the replacement caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted wording.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral impact (activation and replacement). Combined with complete schema documentation, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though error semantics and return values remain undocumented.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the case-sensitive script name and the accountId/accountName alternative. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Make a script the active one,' and immediately states the effect of filtering all incoming mail. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as sieve_deactivate_scripts without needing to open 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?

It gives a clear usage condition: 'Only do this when the user asks for the script to go live.' This tells the agent when to invoke it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like sieve_deactivate_scripts or describe when not to use it beyond the go-live condition.

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