deactivate_student

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, but the description adds that this is a reversible soft delete, that records/history remain, that enrolments are NOT removed, and that specific OAuth scope plus capability are required. These are meaningful behavioral disclosures beyond annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and reversibility, then adds parameter semantics, exclusions, alternative selection, and auth. There is slight redundancy between 'reversible' and 'can be undone,' but every section otherwise earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool, the description covers what the tool does, what it does not do, how it can be reversed, when to prefer it, and required permissions. With an output schema present and destructive annotation present, nothing essential is missing.

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 input schema only gives `id` as a required string; the description explains it is the obfuscated Skilljar learner id, which is the key semantic needed to call the tool correctly. With 0% schema coverage, this fully compensates.

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 the action (deactivate), resource (learner's account), and effect (removing access). The explicit contrast with `anonymize_student` and the reversibility note distinguish it from the closest sibling, so an agent can select it correctly.

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?

Provides explicit routing guidance: prefer this over `anonymize_student` when the goal is to stop platform access because it can be undone. This is strong when-to-use direction with the alternative named, leaving little to inference.

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