Deactivate customer

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond the annotations: there is no hard delete, Active is set to false, invoices/payments/history are preserved, the operation is non-idempotent because the SyncToken changes on success, and deleted customers remain searchable. This is rich context and does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first states the core operation and effect, the second gives usage guidance, and the third explains token behavior and post-deactivation readability. The description is information-dense without being bloated.

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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers the operation's purpose, preconditions (fresh SyncToken), postconditions (Active=false, history retained), and how to verify/read the result afterward. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, and the parameter descriptions already clearly explain the SyncToken requirement, error 5010, and the customer ID format. The tool description reinforces that the SyncToken must come from a fresh get_customer call, but it does not add significant new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific action and resource ('Deactivate a customer') and immediately clarifies the mechanism (sets Active to false) and scope (not a hard delete). This clearly distinguishes it from destructive deletes and from other sibling update/delete tools.

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 explicitly says to use the tool to retire a customer rather than erase data, which provides clear intent. It also notes that deactivated customers remain readable via search_customers with active=false, giving the agent a follow-up path. It does not explicitly list when to prefer alternatives like update_customer, but the context is sufficient.

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