Deactivate an automation (dynamic) workflow so it stops running automatically

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description's added value is limited to 'changes community state' (partly redundant with destructiveHint) and the confirm gate, which the schema already documents. It doesn't say whether deactivation is reversible or what happens to in-flight runs.

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?

Two sentences, no padding, and the core purpose and the confirm requirement are both front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, this covers purpose, state impact, and the confirmation gate, and annotations carry the safety profile. Only minor gaps remain (reversibility, side effects on running automations).

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%, so all three parameters (id, account, confirm) are already documented with meaningful descriptions. The description only restates the confirm semantics, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; 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 (automation/dynamic workflow), plus the concrete effect (stops running automatically). Clear contrast with the sibling activate_workflow without needing its schema.

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 real usage context: changes community state and requires confirm=true only for a user-requested action, which tells the agent when invocation is appropriate. It stops short of naming activate_workflow as the inverse alternative or stating exclusions explicitly.

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