Disable the app portal

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it names the authorization requirement and the exact error returned to unauthorized callers, enumerates what survives (app services, grants, retained owner/admin identities, enrolled local node state), describes the daemon side effect of closing the portal and route listeners, and excludes remote device deletion and invites. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure 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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every following clause conveys distinct behavioral information. The phrasing is dense and jargon-heavy ('registry write transaction', 'enrolled local node state'), but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain returns; it covers side effects, retained state, auth requirements and scope. It could add the re-enable path or behavior when already disabled, but the idempotentHint annotation covers the latter, leaving only a minor gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter burden and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing is missing or misleading on this dimension.

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 and resource ('Disable the home portal') that an agent can distinguish from portal_enable without opening the schema. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling or contrasting the two, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 usage through conditions (gateway mode requires the current portal owner, else access_request_owner_required) and scope limits, but never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as portal_enable to reverse it. Guidance is inferable rather than explicit.

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