deactivate_network_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that deactivation can be forced via override_active and that there is an 'active' flag that may otherwise block the operation. However, it does not state side effects (e.g., network disruption), prerequisites, or error conditions, leaving important behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 concise and front-loaded: one clear action sentence followed by a compact Args block. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 two-parameter mutation with an existing output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameters. However, it lacks context about consequences of deactivation (e.g., connectivity impact), prerequisites, and how this ties into the broader config lifecycle, leaving an agent to guess at operational impact.

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 0%, so the description's Args block is the sole documentation for parameters. It clearly defines id as the configuration profile ID to deactivate and explains the override_active behavior. This provides actionable meaning beyond the bare schema titles, though it could mention how to obtain the ID.

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 states a specific action ('Deactivate') and a specific resource ('currently active network configuration profile'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like activate_network_config, create_network_config, or delete_network_config. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 phrase 'currently active' and the override_active parameter imply when this tool should be used (on active profiles requiring deactivation), but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to alternatives such as delete_network_config. The context is clear enough to infer the intended use, but exclusions are missing.

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