isw_deactivate_paycode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only indicates a write operation ('Deactivate') and the confirm flag, but lacks details on side effects, reversibility, or permissions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. The action is front-loaded, and the critical requirement is stated separately. Every sentence adds value.

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 mutation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose and a key requirement. However, it lacks context on what 'unused' means, post-deactivation effects, or error conditions, leaving some gaps.

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 50%, with confirm having a description and paycode lacking one. The description adds the constraint that confirm must be true, but does not elaborate on paycode or other parameters. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clearly states the verb 'Deactivate' and the resource 'unused paycode', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling paycode tools like create and get status.

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 mentions the confirm requirement but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a paycode is considered 'unused' or any prerequisites.

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