sf_disable_debug_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the two targeting modes, but fails to mention the 'confirm' parameter's role (likely a confirmation gate), the need for targetOrg or directory, or what happens if both traceFlagId and username are omitted. This leaves key mutation behavior undisclosed.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and scope. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 5 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is insufficient. It does not explain how directory and targetOrg are used, whether confirmation is mandatory, or what constitutes a valid invocation (e.g., requires either traceFlagId or username). The description is too sparse to enable correct use in varied contexts.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It only alludes to 'TraceFlag id' and 'user', which map to traceFlagId and username, but it does not mention confirm, directory, targetOrg, or the relationship between them. Five optional parameters remain largely unexplained.

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 names the verb 'Disable', the resource 'debug logs', and the two targeting scopes: by TraceFlag id or for all active flags of a user. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sf_enable_debug_logs and sf_list_debug_logs.

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 when to use the tool (when disabling debug logs is desired) but provides no explicit contrast with alternatives like sf_enable_debug_logs or sf_list_debug_logs. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, but the core use case is clear enough.

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