Disable Tools

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it is session-scoped, reclaims context, reports the disabled packs, approximate tokens removed, and remaining surface, and notes the lite core always remains. The idempotentHint annotation is echoed in the description, but the extra session and output details provide transparency the annotation alone does not. There is 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 compact, with two sentences that front-load the core action and effect before parameter guidance. Every clause adds information: session scope, context reclaim, idempotence, result shape, and valid pack values. No filler or redundant restating of the title appears.

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?

Given the tool has a single parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering idempotence and non-destructiveness, the description supplies all necessary behavioral context. It explains the result contents, the special 'everything' option, and the always-on lite core. The only missing detail is the exact pack menu, but the description directs the agent to enable_tools, which is sufficient for a tool with this complexity.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for explaining 'packs'. It does so effectively by saying it accepts the same names as enable_tools or the special value ['everything'], which tells the agent both the format and the allowed conceptual values. It does not enumerate the pack names, but delegating to enable_tools is a reasonable and functional shortcut given the sibling tool exists.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it disables previously enabled tool packs for the current session, reclaiming context. It clearly differentiates this from enable_tools by describing the inverse operation, and the 'lite core always stays on' detail further scopes what the tool does. No ambiguity remains about the tool's primary function.

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?

The description clearly states the context: disabling previously enabled session tool packs. It directly references enable_tools as the source for valid pack names, which gives the agent a path to understand what values to pass. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the inverse relationship with enable_tools makes the usage intent clear.

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