Disable tool group

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds context beyond them: the group's tools vanish from tools/list and the SDK emits tools/list_changed automatically, so the agent knows the tool-list changes without re-listing. It stops short of saying what happens on an unknown group name, whether the change persists across sessions, or what is returned.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the primary effect, then the automatic notification, then the constraint, then the use case. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive, idempotent toggle with annotations and no output schema, the description covers effect, side-effect notification, and the one restriction. Only the error/return behavior for an invalid group name is left implicit, a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 single 'group' parameter is already described there, including the fact that 'always' cannot be disabled. The description restates the same constraint and adds no naming-format or discovery guidance, so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('turn a section off') and resource ('tool group'), plus the concrete effect: all its tools disappear from tools/list. That effect alone separates it unambiguously from enable_tool_group in the sibling list.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use this to free context budget once a workflow no longer needs a section.' It also states the exclusion that the "always" section cannot be disabled. It does not name enable_tool_group as the inverse operation, so routing is clear but not fully spelled out.

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