sf_agent_deactivate

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden, but it only states the action. It fails to disclose potential side effects (e.g., impact on running processes), reversibility, permission requirements, or the need for confirmation. The 'confirm' parameter hints at a decision point, but nothing is explained.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, earning a high conciseness score. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 5 parameters, so it is not as effective as a slightly longer description with key details.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, multiple optional params like confirm and targetOrg), the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the purpose of optional parameters, the behavior of deactivation, or expected outcomes. The absence of an output schema and annotations increases the need for more context, which is not provided.

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 must compensate. It only mentions 'API name' which maps to the apiName parameter, but adds no value beyond the parameter name itself. The other parameters (confirm, directory, targetOrg, apiVersion) are completely unexplained.

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 verb ('Deactivate') and resource ('an Agentforce agent'), and specifies the key identifier ('by API name'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like sf_agent_activate, which performs the opposite action.

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—use this tool when you need to deactivate an Agentforce agent—but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives. There is no exclusion criteria or context about when this tool is preferred over others.

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