deactivate_web_interview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does usefully state permission requirements and the mandatory exact identity confirmation. However, it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or impact on active interview sessions or links after deactivation.

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 entire description is one compact sentence, front-loading the action and then adding only the essential requirements. There is no filler or repetition.

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 description is adequate for a basic mutation tool, covering action, permissions, and confirmation. However, it omits consequences of deactivation and how to verify state afterward, and it gives no guidance on the profile parameter, leaving the operational picture incomplete.

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 schema already documents questionnaire_identity as GUID$Version and confirm_questionnaire_identity as an exact match, so the description mostly reinforces existing schema information. The optional profile parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a semantic gap.

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 a clear resource ('questionnaire-level web interviews'), making the action unambiguous. It is also easily distinguished from sibling tools like activate_web_interview and get_questionnaire_web_interview_status.

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 description gives prerequisites (permission and identity confirmation) but does not explain when to choose this tool over activate_web_interview or get_questionnaire_web_interview_status. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond the action itself.

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