Disable Editor Tracking

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that fields are retained after tracking is disabled and that a double gate (exact dataset path echo) is required. It still omits things like permission requirements or exact scope of 'selected' tracking items.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the action and resource, then adds the two key constraints. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 destructive, complex mutation with six parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is only partially complete. It covers field retention and the confirmation requirement, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, it lacks parameter-level detail and permission or side-effect context that would help an agent invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for six undocumented parameters. It hints at dataset_path and confirm_dataset_path by requiring exact path echo, but gives no meaning for the four boolean disable_* flags or their defaults. Parameter names are self-descriptive but not fully sufficient for safe invocation.

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 ('禁用') and resource ('编辑追踪项'), scopes it to controlled .sde datasets, and distinguishes itself from the sibling enable_editor_tracking tool. It also notes that fields are retained, which clarifies the boundary of the operation.

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?

Provides a prerequisite ('需要双门和数据集路径精确回显'), implying that confirm_dataset_path must match dataset_path. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as enable_editor_tracking or other maintenance tools, nor does it list exclusions.

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