disable_feed_auto_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral effect ('The feed will require manual triggering after this'), which is useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions, reversibility (e.g., via 'enable_feed_auto_run'), or error conditions, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete—it explains the action, outcome, and usage context. However, it could improve by mentioning related tools (e.g., 'enable_feed_auto_run' for reversal) or potential side effects, given the complexity of disabling automation.

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 single parameter 'feedId' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 automatic runs') and the resource ('for a feed'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'enable_feed_auto_run' and 'trigger_feed_run'. It precisely defines the tool's function without being tautological.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this when you want full control over when a feed runs') and implies an alternative (manual triggering via 'trigger_feed_run'). It provides clear context for its application versus other feed management tools.

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