deactivate_authorization

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or consequences of deactivating an authorization. Deactivation is a state-changing operation, so this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 a single concise sentence, immediately stating the action and purpose with no extraneous wording.

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?

The tool is a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema. The description does not clarify what happens after deactivation, error handling, or return values. For a simple one-parameter tool, the context provided is minimal and insufficient for an agent to fully understand invocation implications.

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 0%, and the description does not add any meaning for the 'authorization_code' parameter. It neither explains what the code represents nor how to obtain it, leaving the agent without guidance beyond the parameter name.

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 clearly states the action ('Deactivate') and the resource ('payment authorization'), and provides a specific usage context ('when a card needs to be forgotten'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like charge_authorization or partial_debit.

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?

Provides a clear trigger scenario ('when a card needs to be forgotten') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool. It gives context but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to other tools.

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