deactivate_purchase_option_offer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral fact that deactivation makes the offer unavailable to new buyers and notes it is disabled in read-only mode. However, it does not mention reversibility, permissions, or the effect on existing buyers/purchases.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core action and effect, and the second adds a useful operational restriction. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 relatively simple mutation tool with four well-documented schema parameters and an output schema, the description provides adequate context: what it does, what effect it has, and a read-only mode caveat. It could be more complete with explicit sibling-tool guidance or side-effect details, but it is not severely deficient.

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 each of the four parameters already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Deactivate') and resource ('one-time product offer') and states the concrete effect ('making it unavailable to new buyers'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like activate_purchase_option_offer and cancel_purchase_option_offer.

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 purpose implies when to use the tool: when an offer should no longer be available to new buyers. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as activate_purchase_option_offer, cancel_purchase_option_offer, or batch state update tools, leaving some usage ambiguity.

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