activate_license

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

With no annotations provided, the description does well to disclose that one license covers up to 3 devices and includes pricing info. It explains the effect (unlocking tools) but does not detail idempotency, success/failure return, or what happens if the key is invalid. Still, the behavioral context is adequate for a simple activation 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 three sentences, each with a clear purpose: action and format, outcome (unlocked tools), and business info (device limit, price, URL). No unnecessary words.

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 activation tool with one parameter, no output schema, and clear sibling tools, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, how to use it, what it unlocks, and business details. It is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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% (the 'key' parameter description is already detailed in the schema). The description repeats the format but adds no new information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline.

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 activates a ClearJSON Pro license key, specifies the exact format, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like license_status and deactivate_license by detailing what it unlocks (query_json, diff_json, convert_json).

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to activate a license) and mentions the license key format and what tools are unlocked. It implicitly guides users to use license_status for checking activation status, but does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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