hosts_bulk_actions_disable_hosts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the HTTP verb/path. It does not state whether disabling is reversible, whether it affects active connections/subscriptions, what permissions are required, or how many UUIDs can be processed at once. The confirm/preview behavior is not surfaced, though the schema does cover the confirm parameter.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the action stated immediately. The raw 'POST /api/hosts/bulk/disable' line and the 'Tags: ...' controller line are boilerplate that contribute little to tool selection, keeping it from a 5.

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 bulk mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits reversibility, side effects on live hosts/connections, and any warning about the preview/confirm gate. The nested body object and confirm semantics are left entirely to the schema, leaving real gaps for correct invocation.

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 50%, and the one undocumented parameter (uuids) is the one the description gestures at with 'by UUIDs'. That adds marginal meaning beyond the schema's bare UUID-pattern array, but it supplies no limits, ordering, or duplicate-handling semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Disable hosts by UUIDs', which cleanly separates this tool from hosts_bulk_actions_enable_hosts, hosts_bulk_actions_delete_hosts and hosts_bulk_actions_set_port_to_hosts. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so an agent relies on tool names rather than text to disambiguate.

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 bulk-disable operation versus disabling hosts individually (hosts_update_host) or via other bulk actions. The 'Tags:' and controller lines are provenance metadata, not usage guidance.

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