Disable Stream

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses that NPM stops forwarding while disabled, that configuration is retained, that the updated stream object is returned, and that dry_run gives a no-op preview. Auth/permission requirements and rate limits are not mentioned, keeping it out of the top tier.

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 primary action and scope, then alternatives, then the dry_run escape hatch. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy or filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description still names the returned object. The main residual gap is the absence of any note on required permissions or the effect on in-flight connections, but for a simple toggle this is largely complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both id and dry_run. The description restates dry_run's preview behavior but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 TCP/UDP stream by ID') plus the key scope detail that forwarding configuration is retained. It explicitly contrasts with delete_stream (removal) and list_streams (status), so an agent can place it precisely among its siblings.

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?

Names delete_stream as the alternative for permanent removal and list_streams for checking status, which gives clear routing guidance. It omits the symmetrical when-to-re-enable guidance and any prerequisites, so it falls just short of the full when/when-not treatment.

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