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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds crucial nuance beyond them — retention of ID/text/metadata/scan history, no permanent deletion, that an already-retired question returns saved state without a write (clarifying the idempotent behavior), and that it does not trigger a Scan. This is rich context that meaningfully shapes how the agent interprets the 'destructive' hint.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its key distinction (inactive vs deletion), then behavior, related tools, and return shape. Slightly long, but nearly every sentence adds distinct routing or behavioral value; the return summary is arguably redundant given an output schema exists.

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?

Given the mutation semantics, annotations, output schema, and 100% param coverage, the description is complete. It covers retention, idempotency, reversal path, related tools, and no-scan behavior, leaving no ambiguity an agent would need resolved before calling.

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% and both parameters are fully documented with format and source, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format detail beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (make a question inactive) and immediately distinguishes the semantics from deletion ('No permanent deletion') and from its reversal sibling (reactivate_prompt). An agent can tell it apart from create_prompt/update_prompt/delete-style tools without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to related tools (reactivate_prompt for reversal, list_prompts for saved questions, get_scan_config for strategy) and clarifies it does not launch a Scan. It gives clear context for use but does not state a hard when-not-to-use condition beyond the implicit alternative of permanent deletion.

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