deactivate_deployment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It adds useful behavioral context by stating the active revision is preserved (implying reversibility), but omits permissions/auth requirements, whether served traffic is immediately stopped, and whether the action can be undone.

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 lead sentence is well front-loaded and earns its place, but the trailing object-store boilerplate ('Use the object store tools...', 'Use the returned object ID...') is generic and largely irrelevant to a deactivate operation.

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 one-param mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return path reasonably well, explaining the object-ID preview and how to consume it, though the safety/permission profile remains undocumented.

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% and the single param is documented only as ':param deployment_id: ID of the deployment,' which restates the name. With one self-evident ID parameter the gap is minor, but the description adds no format or source detail to compensate.

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 and resource: 'Marks a deployment as no longer desired to be served, keeping its active revision intact.' The 'keeping its active revision intact' clause implicitly distinguishes it from delete_deployment, though it never names that sibling directly.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. With siblings like delete_deployment, activate_deployment, and update_deployment in the list, the description never says when to prefer deactivation over deletion or how it relates to activation.

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