deactivate_subscription_offer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose two useful facts — the effect scope (new users only) and the PLAY_MCP_ALLOW_SUBSCRIPTION_ACTIVATION gating requirement. It omits reversibility, idempotency, required permissions, and what happens to in-flight or existing subscribers, which matters for a mutation.

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?

Two tight sentences with the effect front-loaded and the gate second, no filler. Minor friction: the gate is named ..._ACTIVATION on a deactivation tool, which briefly invites confusion and would benefit from a word of clarification.

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 mutation with zero annotations, no output schema, and 60% parameter coverage, the description leaves key questions open: does the offer remain retrievable, is it reversible via activate_subscription_offer, and what is returned. The gating note is the only operational detail beyond the one-line effect.

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 description adds no parameter meaning at all; it never mentions offerId or basePlanId, which are the two fields lacking schema descriptions (60% coverage). An agent must infer how offerId relates to basePlanId and productId from the schema alone.

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 ('Deactivate a subscription offer') plus the concrete effect ('no longer offered to new users'), which distinguishes it in spirit from delete_subscription_offer. It does not explicitly name or contrast with that sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'no longer offered to new users' implies the use case (stop new sign-ups rather than remove the offer), and the env-var gate is a de facto precondition. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. delete_subscription_offer / deactivate_base_plan guidance or statement about whether existing subscribers are affected.

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