deactivate_subscription_offer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (deactivate) and its immediate effect on new subscribers, and notes that it is disabled in read-only mode. However, it does not reveal whether the operation is reversible, what happens to existing subscribers, or any permission or rate-limit constraints. This is acceptable but not rich; it provides some context beyond the schema but is not comprehensive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains zero redundant information. Every word contributes to clarifying what the tool does and its limitation. This is an exemplar of conciseness.

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 sufficient for an agent to understand the primary function and key limitation (read-only mode). It does not explain its relationship to activate/delete siblings, but the tool's purpose is clear and the schema covers all parameters. Given the existence of an output schema (not shown) and the simplicity of the mutation, the description is adequately complete for a confident tool selection.

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% (all 4 parameters are described in the schema). The description adds no further parameter-specific semantics, such as why certain parameters are required or their interplay. Since the schema already fully documents each parameter, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not compensate beyond that.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Deactivate a subscription offer.' It also clarifies the effect: 'making it unavailable to new subscribers,' which distinguishes it from delete (permanent removal) and activate (enable). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like activate_subscription_offer and delete_subscription_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 description provides a clear context: 'Disabled in read-only mode' indicates when the tool should not be used. It implies that deactivation is a temporary state (since it talks about 'new subscribers' and not permanent deletion), but does not explicitly name alternatives like activate_subscription_offer for re-enabling or delete_subscription_offer for permanent removal. Thus, it gives context but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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