Deactivate Product

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value the annotations do not carry: the state change is reversible via reactivate_product. It does not say what deactivation blocks (e.g., use in new documents) or whether related data is affected.

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?

One sentence plus a parenthetical, with the action front-loaded and the reversibility note attached directly to it. Zero wasted words.

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 state-change tool with annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description supplies action, undo path, and sibling routing, which is enough for correct invocation. It would be complete at 5 with a note on the effect of deactivation on dependent records.

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% with a single documented 'id' (Object ID) parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as ID format or source of the ID.

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 (deactivate) and resource (product), and names the counterpart reactivate_product, which separates it from delete_product for an agent reading the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with delete_product, so the distinction is inferable rather than stated.

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 parenthetical points to reactivate_product as the undo path, which is implicit usage guidance for reversibility. There is no statement of when to prefer this over delete_product or update_product, so the when-not condition 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.