Bulk Deactivation

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) already indicate a non-read, non-destructive mutation. The description adds context about the HTTP 201 response and creation of a new record, but it is potentially misleading: deactivation should modify existing records, not create new ones. This confusion detracts from transparency.

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 several sentences long. While the first two sentences are efficient, the third sentence about creating new records is questionable and could be removed for conciseness. Endpoint info is useful but not essential in the description. Overall, it's adequate but not tightly written.

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?

The description mentions the batch limit (1000) and returns the created object, but does not cover error cases (e.g., what happens if more than 1000 IDs are given), response structure, or permissions. Without an output schema, more detail on return value would be helpful. Adequate but with 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?

Input schema has 2 parameters with 100% description coverage. The description reiterates required parameters (company_id, ids) and adds the endpoint path, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (deactivate), resource (people/Directory records), and scale (up to 1000). It also distinguishes from sibling 'bulk_activation' by naming the opposite operation. The verb-resource pair is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for bulk deactivation of Directory records but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or context for use vs. single deactivation. The presence of 'bulk_activation' as a sibling provides indirect contrast, but the description itself offers no usage rules.

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