disable_computer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the concrete effect (authentication is blocked) and hints at reversibility via 'temporary' isolation, which is genuinely useful. However, it omits required permissions, whether existing sessions/logons are terminated, and how to undo it (enable_computer), leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation 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?

Front-loaded with the action and effect, then a compact example and one usage note. Slight redundancy between 'Disable a computer account' and 'Deactivates computer account', but nothing is wasteful.

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 single-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, an example, and the use case. Only reversibility mechanics and permission requirements are missing, which is a minor gap at this complexity level.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The inline example (computer_name="DESKTOP-ABC123") adds value beyond the schema by illustrating the expected name format, reducing the ambiguity between short name and distinguished name.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Disable a computer account') and adds the distinguishing effect ('Deactivates computer account preventing domain authentication'), which separates it from delete_computer. It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Useful for temporary computer isolation' implies the intended scenario but gives no when-not conditions and never points to alternatives such as delete_computer (permanent) or enable_computer (reversal). Usage is inferred rather than specified.

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