disable_tools

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

Beyond the bare readOnlyHint=false annotation, it reveals important runtime behavior: disabled packs free context, the operation is idempotent, the lite core is never disabled, and the result includes disabled packs, tokens removed, and remaining surface. This is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure an agent needs.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the action and session scope are front-loaded, followed by idempotency and result details, and finally the parameter semantics. Every sentence earns its place.

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, session-scoped mutation with an output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, valid values, and what to expect in the response. There are no significant missing pieces an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the parameter would otherwise be opaque, but the description explains that 'packs' accepts enable_tools pack names or ['everything'], which is meaningful semantic guidance. It relies on a sibling definition for the full menu, which is acceptable since it points directly to it.

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 ('Disable') on a concrete resource ('previously enabled tool packs') and scopes it to the current session, which clearly distinguishes it from enable_tools and other document-focused siblings.

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 (after packs have been enabled, for this session) and notes that 'packs' uses the same names as enable_tools, giving an agent a clear route to valid inputs. It does not explicitly spell out when not to use it, but the disable-vs-enable polarity is unambiguous.

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