Disable a tool package

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), the description adds real behavioral context: the effect is session-scoped, resources and prompts are withdrawn alongside tools, a list_changed notification is emitted, and admin packages are immune. It does not say whether in-flight operations are affected or whether other sessions are untouched.

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?

One compact sentence with the scope and effect front-loaded and the admin exemption immediately after. No filler.

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?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema covering returns, the description supplies what an agent still needs: session scope, the full effect on tools/resources/prompts, and the admin exclusion. Only edge cases like in-flight or cross-session effects are omitted, which is minor.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (name, instance) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, which is the baseline expectation here.

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("Disable a tool package") plus scope ("for this session") and the concrete effect (tools, resources and prompts withdrawn). It does not name the sibling servicenow_enable_package as the inverse, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

It states the context of use (session-scoped disabling) and one explicit exclusion: admin tools cannot be disabled. It stops short of pointing to enable_package for reversal or describing when disabling is preferred over other approaches.

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