Update or deactivate a plan

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

Annotations already declare idempotency, non-destructiveness, and open/closed world. The description adds valuable business behavior: 'Inactive plans take no new subscriptions; existing subscriptions continue.' However, it does not cover permission requirements or side effects beyond that, and it repeats the same line from the active parameter description.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. However, it repeats the title phrase 'Update or deactivate a plan' at the start and again as 'Rename a plan or deactivate it', slightly reducing efficiency.

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 simple mutable tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It explains the deactivation side effect but omits whether renaming affects existing subscriptions, what permissions are needed, or how partial updates work.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by implying the 'name' parameter via 'Rename a plan' and the 'active' parameter via 'deactivate'. It does not add meaning for the 'description' parameter or clarify whether updates are partial or full.

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 (update/deactivate) and resource (plan), and clarifies that the update can rename or deactivate. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like get_plan or create_plan, but the action is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool (to rename or deactivate a plan) but gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives (e.g., create_plan, get_plan) exist. Usage is clear only by inference.

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