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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description is not the sole source of the risk profile. It still adds real context beyond them: the blast radius ('every door'), the fact the person record is retained rather than deleted, and the underlying PUT endpoint. It omits permission/auth requirements and how to undo, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with 'WRITE:' and the effect, followed by the retention clarification and the endpoint. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes, what does not change, and the API path — enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around where the ID comes from and confirmation/permission expectations.

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?

There is a single required parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already stating it is a RemoteLock access person UUID. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance (e.g. obtain via list_access_persons), so 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?

A specific verb ('deactivates'), resource ('access user or guest') and concrete effect ('PIN/card stops working on every door') are all stated. The clause 'stays in the account (status deactivated) and is not deleted' distinguishes it from a delete operation, though it never names the closest sibling (remotelock_revoke_access) to sharpen the boundary.

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?

'Only do it when the user asked' gives a safety guardrail but not operational selection criteria. It does not tell the agent when to pick this over remotelock_revoke_access (revoking one grant) or when to prefer edit/reactivation instead, so usage is only implied.

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