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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context: the agent is soft-deleted (is_active=false), can be reactivated later, and Linnet cannot be deactivated. It also discloses the sensitive-tier approval behavior. Minor gap: it doesn't state what happens to the agent's activities or reports beyond 'ride the activity plan'.

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 dense but well-organized: trigger phrases, soft-delete semantics, routing, and approval flow are each given their own sentence. It's longer than average but every sentence earns its place; the approval paragraph is slightly verbose but contains critical operational guidance.

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, company-scoped mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key operational concerns: how to resolve the target, what the deletion semantics are, what cannot be deleted, and how approvals work. It doesn't describe the return value, but the absence of an output schema and the presence of clear side-effect documentation make this a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context for agent_id (resolve via get_team_roster) and companyId (company-scoped), but doesn't add meaning for the optional reason parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Deactivate (archive) an AI agent/specialist from the team') and lists the exact user phrasings that should trigger it. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like reactivate_agent and update_agent by clarifying the soft-delete semantics.

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 gives explicit routing instructions: resolve agent_id via get_team_roster, confirm with the user if names are similar, and notes that agent reports ride the activity plan. It also provides a clear approval-flow directive ('Call it on the first clear ask; the card is the yes — do not re-ask in chat').

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