nodes_disable_node

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 discloses nothing about side effects: whether disabling takes the node offline, affects connected users, whether it is reversible via enable_node, or what permissions are required. Only the bare POST route hints that it is a mutation.

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 short and front-loaded with the endpoint then the purpose, which is fine. But the raw route line and 'Tags: Nodes Controller' add little value for an agent trying to decide whether to call the tool.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only partial parameter coverage, the description is under-specified. It should disclose the effect of disabling a node, its reversibility, and the confirm-parameter behavior rather than relying on the schema alone.

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%, with the uuid parameter undocumented in the schema and no added meaning in the description beyond echoing it in the path template. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap or clarify the uuid's role in selecting the target node.

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 line 'Disable a node' states a specific verb (disable) and resource (node), which is clear enough to distinguish it from the sibling nodes_enable_node. However, it offers no elaboration or explicit sibling differentiation beyond the obvious antonym pairing.

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 such as nodes_enable_node, nodes_restart_node, or nodes_bulk_nodes_actions. It only states the HTTP route and repeats the action name, leaving usage context entirely to inference.

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