openwisp_deactivate_device

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 discloses the POST endpoint (a write operation) but says nothing about what deactivation actually does to the device (service impact, state change), required permissions, idempotency, or how to reverse it, which for a state-mutating tool 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?

One short sentence plus the endpoint reference; purpose is front-loaded and no sentence is wasted. The category tag and URL are extra but cheap and useful.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema action tool, this covers what it does and when. The remaining gap is behavioral (effect on the device, permissions, reversibility), which an agent would benefit from given the absence of annotations.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is documented in the schema as a Device UUID or ID. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (device), and adds the operational framing 'before deletion or maintenance'. An agent can immediately distinguish it from the sibling openwisp_activate_device and other device operations.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('before deletion or maintenance') so the agent knows the lifecycle situation in which to call it. It does not name the sibling alternative (activate_device) or state exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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