deactivate_base_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It usefully explains the effect on existing subscribers and mentions read-only mode, but it does not cover reversibility, permission requirements, or the full impact of deactivating a plan.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The phrase 'Disabled in read-only mode' is slightly ambiguous, which prevents a perfect conciseness score.

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 covers the key lifecycle distinction and the high-quality schema handles parameter clarity. It is sufficient for a straightforward state-changing tool, though it could mention how to re-enable the plan for extra completeness.

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?

All three parameters are described in the input schema with clear meanings (product ID, base plan ID, package name). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so it earns the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 that the tool deactivates a subscription base plan, and explains the specific consequence: making it unavailable to new subscribers while existing subscribers keep their subscription. This distinguishes it from related siblings like activate_base_plan and delete_base_plan.

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 conveys when to use this tool: when you want to stop new subscriptions to a base plan but preserve access for existing subscribers. It implies the distinction from delete_base_plan, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or give excluded scenarios.

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