waf_disable_rule

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

Annotations are absent, so description bears full responsibility. It discloses the action (disable) and purpose but omits critical details: whether the change is reversible (implied by sibling waf_enable_rule), immediate effect, side effects on other rules, or required permissions. A security-critical tool demands more transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and purpose without waste.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic action and purpose. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral details that would be expected for a tool that modifies security rules (e.g., impact, reversibility).

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 the schema already provides pattern and example for ruleId. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how to find the rule ID or its significance. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Disable' and the resource 'ModSecurity rule by ID', and explains the purpose 'to suppress false positives.' It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like waf_enable_rule (enable) and waf_allow_ip (IP allowlisting).

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 purpose implies usage for false positive suppression but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., waf_fp_candidates, waf_enable_rule). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are provided.

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