fetch_disable

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the basic action without any details on side effects, idempotency, or impact on existing intercepted requests. This is a significant gap for a mutation-style tool.

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 short sentence with no fluff, but it essentially restates the tool name ('disable' + 'request interception'). It is concise but adds minimal value beyond the name, so it doesn't fully earn 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is arguably sufficient for a simple toggle. However, with many sibling tools in the fetch lifecycle (fetch_fulfill, fetch_fail, fetch_continue), a bit more context on how this disable interacts with those would improve completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, so per instructions the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information (and none is needed), but the empty schema already covers all parameter semantics.

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 action ('disable') and the resource ('request interception'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. It also effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tool fetch_enable, which does the opposite.

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 implies usage context—use this when you want to turn off request interception—but does not explicitly state when to use it compared to alternatives like fetch_enable or fetch_continue. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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