deactivate_products

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool only sets INACTIVE, does not delete, there is no delete endpoint, and the listing becomes unsellable/hidden. It also notes that every call is logged to the local audit log, adding operational transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and the critical 'does not delete' caveat. Every sentence provides distinct value: scope, limitation, parameter format, and logging. The code block is compact and illustrative, not 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 tool's complexity (nested parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description leaves no critical gap. It covers the action, side effects, limitations, parameter mapping, and relation to a sibling tool's output. An agent can correctly select and invoke this tool with the information 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. It explains the products array structure, the meaning of id (productSid/variation_id), the optional business_client_codes array, and the convenience singular business_client_code. It even maps find_outdated_products row fields directly to the expected parameter names.

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 states the specific action ('sets status to INACTIVE per business client') and the resource ('product'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from deletion, which prevents confusion with any implied 'remove' semantics. The contrast with 'no delete endpoint' makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (when the intent is to hide/unsell a listing) and when not to (when permanent removal is needed, in which case the account manager is the alternative). It also connects the input format to find_outdated_products output, giving clear invocation context.

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