disable

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether disabling is reversible, whether it requires elevated permissions, or what effect it has on existing requests. For a mutation tool, this is a meaningful gap.

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 three-word fragment with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It is front-loaded by default but carries too little information to be considered well-structured.

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?

With one required parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema, the tool is simple, but the description still omits the behavioral context an agent needs: reversibility of disabling, and how it relates to the delete/edit API-key siblings.

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 100% and the schema itself is unusually rich, explaining that api_key_name must be `self` as an explicit confirmation safeguard. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 phrase 'Disable Api Key' names a verb and a resource, so the basic operation is inferable. However it is essentially a restatement of the tool name/title with no differentiation from the many sibling auth/API-key tools such as delete_service_account_api_key or edit_service_account_api_key. An agent cannot tell from this text how 'disable' differs from deleting or editing a key.

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 statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of the delete/edit siblings that operate on the same resource. Usage is left entirely to inference from the name.

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