Kill Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: the immediate effect ('Immediately disable'), the partial nature of the disablement ('tools remain visible... but are marked as disabled'), and the operational context ('operator kill switch'). It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions, but provides substantial behavioral context for a destructive operation.

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?

Two sentences that are perfectly front-loaded and efficient. The first sentence states the core action and context, the second clarifies the partial nature of the disablement. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or wasted verbiage.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of what the tool does and its behavioral effects. It explains the partial disablement (tools remain visible but marked disabled) which is crucial context. It doesn't describe the return value or error conditions, but given the tool's relative simplicity and clear purpose, the description is reasonably complete.

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 description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). The schema already documents that 'server' is a required string parameter representing the backend server name. No additional semantics about parameter format, constraints, or examples are provided in the description.

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 specific action ('Immediately disable routing') and target resource ('backend server'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like gateway_revive_server (which presumably re-enables servers) and gateway_list_servers (which only lists them). The 'operator kill switch' phrase reinforces the emergency nature of the operation.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('Immediately disable routing'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives. However, the existence of gateway_revive_server as a sibling implies this is for disabling rather than permanent removal, and the 'operator kill switch' wording suggests emergency scenarios.

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