nodes_disable

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

Annotations already tell the agent this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) that is non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what disabling entails, whether it is reversible, how connected users are affected, or whether it requires confirmations.

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 three-word phrase is front-loaded and free of padding, but this is under-specification rather than effective concision. There is no room for structure or hierarchy of information.

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 state-changing tool with no output schema and only minimal annotations, the definition omits reversibility, effect on active connections, and confirmation behavior. What remains is not enough for an agent to invoke it confidently in edge cases.

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?

The single parameter is 'uuid' with format uuid but zero schema description coverage. The name is largely self-explanatory as a node identifier, but the description contributes no meaning about which node identifier it expects or where to obtain it, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Disable a node'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as nodes_enable, nodes_delete, or hosts_bulk_disable, so an agent gets no help choosing among them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to disable a node versus restarting, deleting, or bulk-disabling it, and no prerequisites or side-effect warnings are given. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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