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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: the operation only deactivates and does not permanently delete data, requires org:manage scope, and maps to a specific HTTP endpoint. This goes beyond what annotations alone communicate.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. The operationId and endpoint mapping add useful grounding, though 'Do not invent other paths' is slightly redundant after the explicit path is already provided.

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 tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete: it explains the action, scope, non-permanence, and API mapping. There is no output schema, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a major gap.

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 the single optional parameter x_app_id has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter detail, so the 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Deactivate an app' and clarifies it acts on 'the current app.' It also distinguishes itself by noting this is not permanent deletion, which clearly separates it from other delete-family tools.

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?

It states the app scope ('the current app') and provides API context, but it never explicitly names sibling alternatives or conditions for when to choose this over deleteTemplate, deleteApiKey, etc. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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