xae_io_disable

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the meaningful effect (toggling a flag so configs activate without hardware), but says nothing about required prerequisites, what happens to devices not matched by names, or error behavior when TIID is unreachable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the motivation trailing after the em-dash; every clause carries information. Dense but not padded, and no redundant restatement of the name or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the annotations carry the mutation/idempotency profile. The description covers purpose, params and rationale adequately for a two-param toggle; only edge-case behavior (unmatched names, failure modes) is absent.

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 0%, so the description must carry the params — and it largely does: 'Set/clear' maps to the boolean `disable` and 'all, or the named ones' maps to `only`, including the null default meaning all. It does not specify the expected name format or scope of the name strings, so one detail is left to inference.

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+resource pair ('Set/clear the Disabled flag on I/O devices under TIID') plus the operational rationale. It is not a tautology and an agent can tell this is a device-flag mutation, though it never names a sibling to contrast with (e.g. xae_activate_configuration or xae_target).

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 a concrete when-to-use context ('so a configuration activates without the hardware present — TcUnit on a PC, dry runs'), which tells the agent the precondition of absent hardware. It stops short of naming a when-not condition or an alternative tool for the same goal.

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