prices.deactivate

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description usefully qualifies that this is a soft, reversible state change rather than a deletion and gives the exact undo call. That is genuine context beyond the annotations, though it omits permission requirements and side effects on dependent records.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the nature of the operation and its reversal both front-loaded. Every clause 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 two-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies what matters most: what the operation actually does and how to undo it. Minor gaps (auth scope, effect on related subscriptions/prices usage) keep it short of a 5.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents price_id and organization_id (including the --organization-id fallback). The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Deactivate a catalog price') with an immediate scope clarification ('marked inactive, not deleted') that separates it from the sibling prices.delete. An agent can distinguish it from prices.update/delete without opening any schema.

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?

Names the reversal path ('Reverse with prices.update active: true'), which tells the agent how to undo the operation. It doesn't explicitly state when to choose deactivation over prices.delete or other sibling mutations, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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