disable_library_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful side-effect boundary: evidence, README, and version history are retained. However, it does not explain what happens to existing invocations, access controls, or the tool's availability after disabling, leaving key behavioral context unclear.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Disable') and then adds the most important scope qualifier (no deletion of supporting artifacts), which makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. Still, for a state-changing operation with no annotations, the description could reasonably mention how a slug is obtained, whether disabling is reversible, and what immediate effect occurs after the call.

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 schema provides only a 'Slug' string with 0% description coverage, and the tool description never references the slug parameter or explains how it identifies the tool. Since the description must compensate for the empty schema documentation but does not, the parameter's meaning and expected value source remain under-explained.

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 ('Disable') with a clear resource ('a reusable tool') and adds an important clarifying constraint ('without deleting its evidence, README, or version history'). This distinguishes it from related sibling operations like approve_library_tool or create_library_tool, even without explicitly naming them.

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 conveys a basic action but gives no guidance about when to choose disable versus alternatives such as deleting the tool, editing it, or approving it. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or whether the tool can be re-enabled later, so an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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