Deactivate agent

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the crucial qualifier that the destructive flag is not deletion — the record survives as a requester and can be restored via reactivate_agent. That materially changes how an agent should weigh the call. It omits side effects on existing tickets/assignments.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, with the state transition and reversibility front-loaded ahead of any procedural detail. Nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description is sufficient to call the tool correctly, though it leaves open the consequences for the agent's existing tickets and group memberships.

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?

There is a single parameter (agent_id) with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already carries its meaning. The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance (e.g., obtainable from get_all_agents / filter_agents), so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Deactivate an agent') and immediately clarifies the resulting state ('they become a requester'), which distinguishes it from deactivate_requester in the sibling list. An agent can pick the right tool without opening any schema.

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?

Names the reversal path ('reversible with reactivate_agent'), giving clear context for the counterpart operation, and the 'become a requester' note hints at the alternative deactivate_requester. It stops short of explicit when-to-use/when-not-exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., whether tickets owned by the agent are reassigned).

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