accelo_deactivate_contact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key behavioral traits: the mutation semantics (standing set to inactive) and, importantly, that it is not a delete. It omits reversibility (can the contact be reactivated?), permission/auth requirements, and idempotency, which would matter for a mutation, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

It is front-loaded with the essential action and constraint, and short. There is mild redundancy, restating 'standing to inactive' twice and ending with an Args block that duplicates the only parameter already covered inline.

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 one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it explains the action, its limit, and the sole argument. It could still note whether the operation is reversible or what a successful response indicates.

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 coverage is 0% and there is one parameter, but the description compensates by explaining id is the 'Contact ID to deactivate' and that no other parameters are taken. That is adequate meaning for a single required id, though it adds nothing about format or lookup source.

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 names a specific verb (deactivate) and resource (contact) and immediately clarifies scope: it sets standing to inactive rather than deleting. This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like accelo_update_contact or accelo_get_contact, so an agent can select it without opening a 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?

It gives clear context by stating the Accelo API has no contact-delete operation and that this only sets standing to inactive, which effectively tells the agent when this is the correct action. However, it does not explicitly name any alternative tool or contrast with accelo_update_contact for other contact changes.

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