Deactivate Prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it clearly states the key side effect: this is a soft-delete, not a removal from the database. It also specifies search-related consequences, though it does not mention reversibility or permissions.

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 main purpose is front-loaded and the overall length is appropriate. There is slight redundancy between 'won't be used in searches' and 'won't appear in search results', but the text remains tight and readable.

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-parameter tool with an output schema, the description conveys the essential action and side effects without needing to explain return values. The main omission is explicit guidance around reactivation, but that is not required to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100% and the only parameter, prompt_key, is self-describing. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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?

The first sentence states the exact verb ('Deactivate'), resource ('prompt'), and consequence ('won't be used in searches'). The second sentence clarifies soft-delete semantics and persistence, which separates it semantically from sibling tools like activate_prompt and update_prompt_results.

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 rationale is implied: use this when you want a prompt excluded from searches. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention activate_prompt as the inverse/alternative, so selection guidance is left to inference.

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