teamleader_subscriptions_deactivate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully highlights the side effect of stopping future invoicing, which adds important context beyond merely saying 'deactivate'. However, it does not disclose other relevant behaviors such as irreversibility, required permissions, or impact on existing invoices.

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 remarkably concise: one sentence with a clear action and an explicit side effect. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple nature of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and the key side effect. It is adequately complete for the complexity level, though it could optionally mention reversibility or permissions. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with a clear description ('The subscription ID to deactivate'). The tool description adds no additional parameter details, so it does not go beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies due to high schema 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 clearly states the specific verb 'deactivate' and the resource 'subscription', and uniquely identifies the scope by adding the side effect of stopping future invoicing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like subscriptions_update or subscriptions_info, which relate to other actions on subscriptions.

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 side effect 'stops future invoicing' implies the appropriate context for use, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like subscriptions_update or when not to use it. There are no exclusion criteria or mention of alternative tools.

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