agent_deactivate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly discloses soft-delete behavior and lists three specific consequences (removal from channels, disabling webhooks, message expiry per TTL). This adds transparency beyond the obvious, though it omits reversibility and return value.

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 extraneous information. First sentence states the action, second elaborates on effects. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool is simple with one parameter, but the description lacks information about what the tool returns (no output schema) and any prerequisites or error conditions. While core behavior is described, completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 has 100% coverage for the single api_key parameter, which includes a description. The description adds no additional semantics about the parameter (e.g., how to obtain or format it), so it does not enhance the schema's information.

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 clearly states the action (deactivate), the resource (agent identity), and specifies it's a soft-delete with concrete effects: removes from channels, disables webhooks, messages expire per TTL. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agent_delete_capability or agent_register.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. There's no mention of when not to use it or which scenarios call for other tools.

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