disableRule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. '禁用规则' implies a mutation (disabling), but it doesn't describe what happens when a rule is disabled (e.g., stops applying, remains in system), whether it's reversible (via enableRule), permission requirements, side effects, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 (two characters) but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it's front-loaded with the core action, it lacks necessary context for a mutation tool. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity, making this borderline adequate but with significant gaps.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 27 sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'disable' entails operationally, how it differs from similar tools, or what to expect after invocation. The high sibling count increases complexity, making the minimal description insufficient for proper tool selection and use.

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 has 100% description coverage with 'ruleName' clearly documented as '规则名称' (rule name). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description, which applies here.

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 '禁用规则' (disable rule) is a tautology that restates the tool name 'disableRule' in Chinese. It doesn't specify what type of rule, what system it operates on, or what 'disable' means operationally. While it includes a verb+resource, it lacks specificity and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'enableRule' or 'setAllRulesState' beyond the basic action.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., rule must exist), when-not-to-use scenarios (e.g., vs. deleteRule), or explicit alternatives like 'enableRule' for toggling or 'setAllRulesState' for bulk operations. With 27 sibling tools including related ones, this lack of differentiation is problematic.

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