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

Annotations already mark the operation destructive and non-idempotent. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the exact DELETE path, the required certs:manage scope, and that the same PassFast HTTP API/billing/rate limits apply. The instruction 'Do not invent other paths' is especially useful for an open-world tool.

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 organized, with a one-line summary followed by scope, endpoint, and operational constraints. The first line 'Deactivate Google credential' is slightly redundant with the next sentence, but the overall structure is efficient and readable.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential invocation context: method, path, required scope, and API constraints. It does not explain side effects or prerequisites beyond deactivation, but annotations cover destructiveness and the schema covers parameters, so the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by showing that the id appears as a path parameter in DELETE /manage-certs/google/{id}, which the schema alone does not explicitly state. The x_app_id parameter is already well described in the schema as a header override.

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 clearly states the action: 'Deactivates a Google Wallet credential.' It also maps the operation to an exact OpenAPI endpoint, which removes ambiguity. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as deleteCertificate or uploadGoogleCredentials, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. It implies usage through the verb 'deactivates,' but provides no practical selection guidance or relationship to related tools like listGoogleCredentials, uploadGoogleCredentials, or deleteCertificate.

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