redis_disable

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing that this is a disruptive operation, but it only says 'Disable Redis.' It does not state potential impact, reversibility, or whether confirmation is actually enforced. Worse, the description says confirm is required while the schema marks it optional with a default of false, making the behavior less transparent.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no filler text. However, the brevity veers into under-specification, and the 'Args' section adds a misleading detail rather than earning 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 destructive operation with no annotations and minimal schema detail, the description omits critical context: what exactly gets disabled, whether the action can be reversed, what confirmation means, and how this relates to redis_status or redis_enable. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for this missing operational context.

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 schema provides 0% coverage for parameter semantics, so the description needed to explain what confirm means and what values are accepted. It only says 'confirm: Required,' which adds little meaning and actively contradicts the schema's optional default. This is insufficient compensation for the missing schema detail.

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?

'Disable Redis' clearly names a verb and resource, and given sibling tools like redis_enable and redis_status, an agent can infer this turns off the Redis service. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state what scope 'disable' covers.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this tool versus redis_enable or redis_status, nor are there any prerequisites or consequences described. The only usage hint is the misplaced note that confirm is required, which is not a sufficient usage guideline.

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