activate_skill

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior by mentioning the 'shared safe mutation pipeline,' suggesting it mutates state safely, but it lacks details on side effects, authentication, rate limits, or what 'safe' entails.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource, containing no filler or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally complete but could clarify the return format or confirm if the output schema describes the reactivated skill. The phrase 'through the shared safe mutation pipeline' hints at a consistent pattern but is vague.

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 0% description coverage for the single required parameter lat entity_skill_id, and the tool description provides no additional meaning, leaving the agent uninformed about what this ID represents or how to obtain it.

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 action ('Reactivate'), the resource ('ignored latent skill'), and the mechanism ('through the shared safe mutation pipeline'), distinguishing it from siblings like deactivate_skill and track_latent_skill.

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 for reactivating previously ignored latent skills but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like track_latent_skill or adopt_skill, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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