kernel_extensions_disable

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses no effect details: whether the disable is reversible, whether running extension code is stopped immediately, whether a restart is needed, or how unknown ids are handled. For a state-mutating operation this is a substantial gap.

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 short sentence with no filler and the resource/selector front-loaded, which is structurally sound. However, brevity here edges into under-specification rather than economy.

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?

The tool is a mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, so the description should explain effect and reversibility. It supplies none of that, leaving the definition too thin for the operation's risk profile.

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 one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides only the name 'id' and type string. The description says 'by id' but does not specify the id format (extension id vs bundle id) or how to obtain a valid one (e.g., via kernel_extensions_list), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Disable') and resource ('installed extension') plus the selector ('by id'), so the core action is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the closely named siblings kernel_extensions_enable and kernel_extensions_activate, leaving an agent to infer which of the three state-changing operations it wants.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance beyond the bare verb: nothing says whether to prefer this over enable/activate, whether the extension must already be enabled, or what prerequisites exist. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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