proxy_deactivate_server

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 deactivation effect and budget freeing but lacks details on reversibility, permissions, or side effects. This is adequate but not rich.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a clear parameter description. No unnecessary words; but the 'Args:' style is slightly redundant given the schema.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, one parameter, and existing output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand when and how to use it. It covers the action and parameter source adequately.

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 description compensates for zero schema description coverage by explicitly telling the user to get the server name from proxy.list_active_servers(), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's type definition.

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 tool deactivates/unmounts a server to free up tool budget, with specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like proxy_activate_server.

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 advises that the server name should be obtained from proxy.list_active_servers(), providing a clear workflow hint. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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