alterlab_disable_beta_feature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses idempotency ('calling it when not opted in returns success') and the limitation on GA features. It does not mention side effects, auth needs, or error behavior, but the operation is simple enough that this is adequate.

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 three sentences, front-loading the purpose, then adding idempotency and constraint. No wasted words.

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 purpose, idempotency, and a constraint. It also references a sibling tool for listing slugs. Minor gaps: no mention of return values or error states, but overall adequate.

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% since the parameter 'slug' already has a description. The tool description adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 tool's purpose: 'Opt out of a beta feature on your AlterLab account.' It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'alterlab_enable_beta_feature' by noting that GA features cannot be disabled.

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 context by mentioning idempotency and the constraint that GA features cannot be disabled. It also directs users to 'alterlab_list_my_beta_features' to find valid slugs. However, it does not explicitly contrast with enabling or list all alternatives.

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