deactivate_project

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, but it only states 'deactivate' and 'optionally save history'. It does not explain what deactivation entails (e.g., closing a session, irreversibility, impact on current state) or what happens to history when saveHistory is false. This is insufficient for a state-changing tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It communicates the core action and the optional parameter efficiently, earning its place without waste.

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?

Given the tool's mutating nature and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the practical implications of deactivation, whether it is reversible, how it interacts with the current session, or why saveHistory might be necessary. The presence of activate_project as a sibling only implies the inverse, but the tool still needs more context.

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?

The input schema already provides a clear description for saveHistory ('Whether to save current history before deactivating'), and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description's mention of 'optionally save history' paraphrases the schema without adding new meaning, so it does not elevate beyond the baseline.

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 identifies the resource 'current project', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like activate_project. It also mentions the optional saveHistory behavior, making the purpose 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 usage (deactivate the current project) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as activate_project or snapshot tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring an active session, or when one might choose not to save history.

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