disable_api_endpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the endpoint is deactivated, MCP clients can no longer call it, and the operation mutates a live MCP server's tool surface, plus the caution to confirm with the user. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and effect, and contains no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a single obvious parameter, the description adequately covers purpose, effect, and the user-confirmation requirement. It could mention re-enabling or the result, but the description is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 0% and the description does not mention api_endpoint_id at all. Since the description must compensate for missing schema documentation but fails to do so, it adds no meaning beyond what the parameter name itself implies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Deactivate' and identifies the resource as an 'API-Platform endpoint,' clearly stating that it turns a tool OFF so MCP clients can no longer call it. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool enable_api_endpoint, which would perform the opposite action.

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 clear context for use by noting that it mutates a live MCP server's tool surface and instructs to confirm with the user first. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools (e.g., enable_api_endpoint for reactivation), so it lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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