pvsyst_license_deactivate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the confirm guard, which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about irreversibility, what happens to an in-use license or running simulations, or whether the license can be reclaimed afterwards.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the bracketed category and action, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation in the schema, the description needs to do more: it omits customer_id, the return/result of deactivation, and the consequences of the operation. An agent has enough to attempt the call but not enough to do so safely.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains that `confirm` must be true, but the required `customer_id` parameter is never mentioned or explained, leaving the most important input undocumented.

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 states a specific verb ('Deactivate') and resource ('this computer's CLI license'), and the scoping to the local machine implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling pvsyst_license_activate. It stops short of naming that sibling or explaining the lifecycle relationship, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

'Requires confirm=true' gives one concrete prerequisite for invocation, which is useful. However, there is no statement of when to deactivate versus re-activating (pvsyst_license_activate) or syncing (pvsyst_license_sync), nor any warning about when not to use it.

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