avito_deactivate_ad

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it does not delete the account, it requires the user's explicit consent, and it must not be retried automatically on an uncertain result — all non-obvious operational constraints.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the scope constraint and the retry rule. No filler or repetition of the name.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with a nested reason object and no output schema, the description covers consent, non-deletion and retry behavior adequately. It omits what state the ad ends in and whether the action is reversible, which would be useful for a destructive operation, but the core is complete.

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 only 33%, so the description must carry weight; it does explain the intent behind 'reason' (motif choisi par l'utilisateur) and 'confirm' (accord explicite). However, the adId parameter and the nested reason enums are left entirely to the schema, so it only partially compensates for the low coverage.

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 verb and resource ('Désactiver une annonce précise du compte') and immediately scopes it by requiring a reason and explicit user consent. It is clearly a deactivation/mutation tool, distinguishable from read siblings like avito_get_my_ad, though it does not name the counterpart avito_activate_ad explicitly.

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 implies usage through 'avec le motif choisi par l'utilisateur et son accord explicite' and gives a behavioral rule ('Ne jamais réessayer automatiquement en cas de résultat incertain'), but never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as not deactivating or editing the ad. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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