Deactivate App in Portal

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds the cascading widget removal detail, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose reversibility, what happens to existing settings, or whether dryRun affects the cascade. Given annotations carry the core safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 compact and efficient—two short sentences with no waste. It front-loads the primary action clearly and then adds the key behavioral note about cascading. The structure is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 mutation tool (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false) with no output schema and no parameter semantics in the description, this is incomplete. The dryRun parameter is undocumented, the cascade behavior lacks detail (what exactly is removed, reversibility), and there's no mention of prerequisites like existing app installs. A destructive tool should provide more guidance on safe usage.

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% and the description mentions none of the three parameters. The dryRun parameter's semantics are entirely undocumented—the agent must infer that it previews the deactivation without executing it. portalRef and appKey are only explained by their names. With a 0% coverage and no description compensation, this scores well below baseline.

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 action ('Deactivate an app in a portal') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like kilango_activate_app_in_portal, kilango_install_app, and kilango_uninstall_app by implying this toggles an app state within a portal context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from activate or uninstall, and mentions cascading widget removal which adds functional clarity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like kilango_uninstall_app, kilango_activate_app_in_portal, or kilango_archive_portal. It's not stated whether this is reversible, whether activation restores the widgets, or when deactivation is preferred over uninstallation. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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