activate_license

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

With no annotations, the description carries transparency. It explicitly discloses that the key is 'verified offline against Tempo's signing key,' 'saved to ~/.tempo/license,' and 'nothing is sent anywhere.' This covers safety, privacy, and side effects. It does not mention overwrite behavior or error cases, but for a simple activation tool it provides strong 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the usage. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second explains how to use and what happens. No redundant or filler 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: what it does, how to use it, where it saves, and privacy. It omits return values or confirmation behavior, but given simplicity and the lack of output schema, it's reasonably complete.

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 has a single 'key' property with no description. The description compensates by saying 'Paste the key from the welcome email,' clarifying what the key is and its source. It adds meaning beyond the schema, though it doesn't specify format requirements or validation rules.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Activate a Tempo Pro or Team Solo licence key.' It uses a specific verb ('Activate') and resource ('licence key'), and is easily distinguished from sibling tools like license_status, which presumably checks licensing state rather than activating.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Paste the key from the welcome email.' This tells the user when and how to use the tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the activation vs. status distinction is implicit through the description and sibling names.

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