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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds context that write tools require signer policy, configured RPC, and active SAP profile, but does not detail the specific effects of deactivation (e.g., what happens to the tool, permissions needed). The generic guidance is somewhat helpful but not fully transparent.

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 contains redundant generic SAP MCP guidance that appears in many tools (pricing, routing, signing). The first sentence is concise, but the rest wastes space repeating information that is already in the input schema description.

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 destructive write tool with one parameter, the description should explain the effects of deactivation and specific prerequisites. It includes generic write tool requirements but not tool-specific behavior. The presence of an output schema is noted but not described, so completeness is lacking.

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 single parameter 'toolName' described as 'Name of the tool descriptor to deactivate.' The description adds no further semantics beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Deactivate a SAP tool descriptor by name,' indicating a specific verb and resource. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sap_reactivate_tool, the name itself contrasts sufficiently.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It includes generic SAP MCP execution guidance but no specific context like 'Use this to deactivate a currently active tool; use sap_reactivate_tool to reactivate.' No exclusions or when-not-to-use are provided.

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