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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnly=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond this: the delete is soft, and existing DebtPayment records are retained for audit. This helps the agent communicate consequences accurately, though reversibility is not addressed.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose first, then the key behavioral consequence, followed by parameter and return details. Every sentence adds relevant information without filler.

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 single-parameter soft-delete tool, the description adequately covers the action, the retention behavior, and the return semantics. Additional details such as permission requirements or behavior on an already-deactivated rule would be nice but are not critical.

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 0%, and the schema only provides the parameter name 'rule_id'. The description compensates by explicitly defining it as 'ID of the rule to deactivate', giving the parameter its operational meaning.

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 names a specific action ('Deactivate') and resource ('debt payment rule'), and clarifies the semantic as a soft delete. It also distinguishes itself from a hard delete by noting audit records are retained.

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 usage is implied: if you want to deactivate a rule, use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over update_debt_payment_rule, or whether deactivated rules can be reactivated.

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