Disable Redirection Host

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the configuration is preserved, that the redirect stops being served, that the change is applied to NPM, and that dry_run previews without mutating. It does not mention required permissions, reversibility via enable_redirection_host, or side effects on dependent hosts, leaving modest gaps.

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 its key distinction, then the alternative tools, then the side effect and return value. Slightly redundant: 'stops the redirect from being served' and 'applies the configuration change' cover overlapping ground, and the return-value sentence is unnecessary given the output schema.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies everything the agent needs: the effect, the config-retention semantics, sibling routing, and the dry_run safety valve.

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 both id and dry_run are already documented in the schema, and the description's dry_run explanation largely restates the schema text. The phrase 'by ID' confirms the identifier's role but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Disable a redirection host by ID') and immediately clarifies the semantic distinction from deletion: configuration is retained in NPM while the redirect stops being served. This separates it cleanly from delete_redirection_host without needing siblings opened.

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?

Explicit routing is provided: use delete_redirection_host to remove the host, list_redirection_hosts to check status, and this tool to disable it. The dry_run option is also framed as a preview path, so an agent has clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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