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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description's 'Deactivates' is consistent. It adds scope and API mapping, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., irreversible invalidation) or any additional behavioral nuance beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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?

Extremely concise: a single action sentence plus three short lines of essential context (scope, API mapping, caution). No redundant text; the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple deactivation operation with full schema and relevant annotations, the description provides adequate context: scope, API mapping, and a warning against inventing paths. Could mention reversibility or effects on the credential, but that is not critical given the operation is destructive by definition.

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 covers both parameters at 100% (id and x_app_id), including descriptions and required flag. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate; it does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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?

Description clearly states it deactivates a Google Wallet credential, includes scope (certs:manage) and maps to a specific OpenAPI operationId, distinguishing it from sibling tools like deleteCertificate or revokeApiKey. The verb and resource are unambiguous.

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?

Provides API context (same PassFast HTTP API, billing, rate limits) and a caution not to invent paths, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when to use this vs other deletion tools. Selection guidance is implied by the action name but not made explicit.

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