deactivate

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It restates the basic action without explaining consequences, reversibility, or side effects of deactivation. The destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations are present, but the description fails to elaborate on what 'deactivate' actually entails in practice.

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, economical sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the core action. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly 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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete for a destructive tool. It does not explain side effects, prerequisites, or operational impact on phases and objects. Even with schema coverage, an agent would lack essential context to invoke it safely.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only loosely maps 'objects' to 'paths' and mentions 'phases' without clarifying array formats or relationships. It does not explain what constitutes a valid path or phase, nor how the two arrays interact. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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) and the resource (objects in phases), which is specific and easily understood. It implicitly differentiates from the sibling 'activate' tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives. Still, the verb-resource pair is sufficiently precise.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'activate' or 'set_mode'. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context where deactivation is appropriate. The description only tells what it does, not when to apply it.

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