activateBug

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the state transition (reactivating resolved/closed bugs), it doesn't disclose permission requirements, whether this action is reversible, rate limits, or what happens to bug history. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that directly convey the purpose and usage context. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with no wasted text.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and context but lacks crucial information about parameters, behavioral details, permissions, and expected outcomes that an agent needs to use this tool effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters (only 1 required), the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'bugId', 'assignedTo', 'openedBuild', or 'comment' mean or how they affect the reactivation. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 verb ('activate/reopen') and resource ('Bug'), and specifies it's for bugs that are already resolved/closed. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'resolveBug' beyond mentioning the state transition direction.

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 about when to use this tool ('适用于已解决/已关闭后重新激活' - applicable after resolution/closure for reactivation), which implicitly distinguishes it from creation or initial resolution tools. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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