disable_tools

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

The annotation only provides readOnlyHint=false, leaving the description to carry behavioral context. It excellently discloses idempotency ('already-disabled packs are reported, not errors'), the lack of file changes ('Nothing about the presentation files changes'), session-scoped impact, and output behavior ('Reports the approx token cost removed and the remaining active surface'). No contradiction with annotations.

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 five compact sentences, each adding unique value: the action, parameter semantics, idempotency, side-effect clarification, and output. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains 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?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description fully covers the operation, parameter domain, important side-effect constraints, and expected report output. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Since the schema has 0% description coverage, the description must compensate. It does so by defining the parameter as pack names shared with enable_tools and allowing the special value 'everything'. It does not enumerate the actual pack names, but the pointer to enable_tools is sufficient.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Switch pack tools back off to shrink the tool surface'. It clearly identifies the tool's scope, mentions the lite core always staying on, and references enable_tools as the counterpart, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without ambiguity.

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 explicitly ties itself to enable_tools ('Takes the same pack names as enable_tools, or "everything"'), making the alternative obvious, and the context of shrinking the tool surface implies when to use it. However, it does not give an explicit 'use this when...' or when-not rule, so it stops short of a 5.

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