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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the master-API-key authentication requirement, which is real value beyond the annotations, but says nothing about what deactivation actually does to in-flight sequences, enrolled contacts, or how abort differs from archive.

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 substantive content is two short front-loaded sentences with no padding around the action. The injected pricing block is boilerplate that consumes space without aiding tool selection, keeping it below a 5.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description only owes the agent the action and its prerequisites, both of which are present. It falls short of complete because the distinction between deactivating, archiving, and stopping (remove_or_stop_contact_ids) is left for the agent to guess.

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% for the single sequence_id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, sourcing, or semantics for the ID beyond what the schema already states.

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 ("Deactivate") and resource ("a sequence"), so the action itself is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close siblings post_apollo_emailer_campaigns_sequence_id_archive or ..._approve, which an agent reads as adjacent lifecycle operations on the same sequence.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to alternatives such as archive vs abort vs approve. The only actionable instruction is the credential prerequisite ("Requires a master API key"), which is a gate rather than usage guidance.

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