deactivate_game_feature_plugin

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds material context beyond them: the async fire-and-return semantics, the immediate return of current state, and the exact no-op contract with already_inactive=true. That is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs before calling a destructive async operation.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the async note, then the return shape; each sentence carries information. The parenthetical 'honest-headless' is opaque jargon that adds little, but otherwise it is tight and well-ordered.

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?

No output schema exists, so the inline Returns block is essential and it is provided with full field names. Combined with the async/polling guidance and idempotency semantics, an agent has everything needed to invoke and follow up correctly.

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%, so both parameters (plugin_url, plugin_name) and their precedence are already documented by the schema. The description's 'by name or URL' adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deactivate an active Game Feature Plugin') and the addressing mode (by name or URL). It is clearly distinguishable from the activate/list/get siblings, and it even cross-references get_game_feature_plugin_state for the follow-up poll.

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?

Explains when it applies (an active plugin) and what to do next (poll get_game_feature_plugin_state, same pattern as activate). It clarifies the safe-to-call case ('if not active, no-ops'), but does not contrast versus the sibling unload_game_feature_plugin, so the agent must infer which teardown is appropriate.

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