eventbridge_disable_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action but omits key implications: whether the rule must exist, whether disabling is reversible, the effect on targets, and behavior if the rule is already disabled. For a mutation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and environment. There is no redundant or extraneous content, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple with two parameters and a fully documented schema, but the description lacks important contextual details such as prerequisites (e.g., rule must exist), post-condition state (rule remains but inactive), and relationship to enable_rule. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally complete but not fully informative.

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%, with the input schema clearly documenting both parameters (name and eventBusName). The description adds no parameter-specific details, but since the schema already covers them fully, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Disable') and resource ('EventBridge rule'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like eventbridge_enable_rule and eventbridge_delete_rule. The addition of 'in LocalStack' also clarifies the execution environment.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eventbridge_enable_rule or eventbridge_delete_rule. There is no context about the operational workflow, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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