calendars_disable_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, and idempotentHint true, which provide some safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond the name; it does not explain the semantics of 'disable' (e.g., setting isActive to false), potential side effects, or permissions. Since annotations cover the basic safety traits, the description's failure to add any behavioral context keeps it at a minimal score.

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 brief (two words) but not appropriately concise—it's under-specified. It lacks essential context and does not front-load key information. This is not genuine conciseness but rather a failure to provide necessary details.

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?

Despite having only two required parameters and no output schema, the description is entirely insufficient. An agent cannot understand what the tool does, what 'disable' means, or how it relates to other group operations. Even for a simple tool, the description fails to convey the tool's purpose and usage effectively.

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% for the two parameters, so the baseline is 3. The schema briefly describes 'Group Id' and 'Is Active?' which is minimal but present. The description does not enhance parameter understanding; it doesn't clarify that isActive=false corresponds to disabling. This is acceptable given the schema covers all parameters, but no extra value is added.

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 Group' is a near-tautology of the tool name 'calendars_disable_group'. It restates the name without specifying what a 'group' is in this context (calendar group?), how disabling differs from other group operations like edit or delete, or what the effect of disabling is. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools such as calendars_edit_group or calendars_delete_group.

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. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent cannot determine whether to call this instead of calendars_edit_group or calendars_delete_group based on the description alone.

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