ClockNext: archive plan

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

The description contradicts the annotation destructiveHint: true by claiming 'NOT a delete', that it's reversible, and that customers are unaffected. This is a serious inconsistency that could mislead an agent about the tool's destructive potential.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core action. Each subsequent sentence adds necessary context about consequences, reversibility, and exclusions without redundancy or wasted words.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers the operation's effect (sets isActive to false), side effects (history kept, customers unaffected), reversibility, and usage limits. The annotation contradiction is separate and does not reduce the textual completeness.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, describing it as 'The plan id to deactivate (soft-archive — reversible, not a delete).' The description's mention of soft-archive and reversibility merely mirrors the schema, adding no new parameter-specific semantics.

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 ('Deactivate'), names the resource ('plan in your catalogue'), and explicitly contrasts with 'NOT a delete', making its purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from other archive tools and from deletion operations.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use ONLY to retire a plan you no longer sell'), clarifies what it is not for ('unrelated to cancelling a customer's purchase or ending a subscription'), and names the alternative for reactivation (clocknext_update_plan).

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