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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the operation is a soft deactivation that preserves the record, plus the underlying endpoint. It doesn't mention permission requirements or what state the booking must be in, keeping it off 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?

Two compact sentences plus an endpoint reference. The "WRITE:" prefix front-loads the most decision-relevant fact, and every clause (soft-delete semantics, prerequisite lookup, endpoint) earns its place.

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?

A single-parameter mutation tool with rich annotations and no output schema. The description covers purpose, semantics, and how to obtain the required id – nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 booking_id is documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by telling the agent where to source the id (vintrace_list_bookings), which is actionable information the schema does not contain.

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 and resource ("deactivates a fruit booking") and immediately clarifies the crucial semantic boundary: the record is kept, not deleted. That distinguishes it cleanly from any delete sibling and tells the agent exactly what state change occurs.

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 directs the agent to run vintrace_list_bookings first to obtain the booking id, which is a concrete prerequisite. It stops short of saying when *not* to deactivate (e.g., what conditions block it), but the routing guidance is clear.

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