chatbuy_activate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the effect (removing the limit) but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., billing implications), prerequisites (e.g., active Stripe subscription), error behavior for unregistered emails, or reversibility. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 short sentences, one in Japanese and one in English, both immediately conveying the action and effect. There is no filler or redundant content, and the bilingual format is compact while serving localization needs.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, effect, and parameter semantics. It lacks preconditions and error handling details, but these are less critical given the simplicity. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool in most cases.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description ('Stripeサブスク登録に使ったメールアドレス' – email used for Stripe subscription registration). The tool description adds 'registered email' context, but the schema already provides the essential meaning. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the optional supporter subscription by email and removes the free-tier search limit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chatbuy_status, chatbuy_login, chatbuy_search, and chatbuy_review. The verb 'activate' and resource 'supporter subscription' are explicit and specific.

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 implies usage when a registered email exists and the user wants to remove the free-tier limit, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., if already activated). No alternative sibling tools are mentioned, nor any prerequisites like prior subscription setup.

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