disable_passenger_app

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'disable/stop' without explaining side effects, reversibility, whether the app remains registered, or any impact on running processes. This is a minimal action statement with no transparency about consequences.

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 extremely concise, using only six words. It front-loads the action and resource without extraneous filler. While it may be under-specified in other dimensions, it earns high marks for not wasting words.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description is still incomplete. It fails to clarify what 'registered application' means, how disabling differs from unregistering, or what state the app enters. The presence of sibling tools like enable_passenger_app and unregister_passenger_app creates ambiguity that the description does not resolve.

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 achieves 100% description coverage with 'Application name', so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no extra meaning about the parameter (e.g., whether it expects a full name, path, or identifier). It neither improves nor detracts from the schema's parameter documentation.

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 'Disable/stop a registered application' clearly identifies the action (disable/stop) and the resource (a registered app). It conveys a specific operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like unregister_passenger_app, which could also be misinterpreted as stopping. Overall, it is far from tautological and provides a clear verb+resource pair.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, effects, or differences from enable_passenger_app or unregister_passenger_app. The description provides no contextual cues for selection among related passenger app tools.

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