disable_queue_tree

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

The annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the redundant phrase 'Disables a queue tree' — it does not mention effects on traffic, reversibility, or any prerequisites, leaving the agent without additional useful information.

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 extremely short, but it merely restates the tool name. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness, as it adds no new information to help the agent understand the tool's behavior or parameters.

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 two-parameter tool, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the role of the 'device' parameter, any prerequisites, or the expected outcome beyond disabling. While an output schema exists, the lack of usage context and parameter semantics leaves the description inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's invocation.

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 provides no parameter-level detail. It does not even state that the queue tree is identified by 'name' or that 'device' is optional. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action ('Disables') and the resource ('a queue tree'), making it distinct from sibling tools like enable_queue_tree and remove_queue_tree. It is a specific verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for temporarily disabling without removing the queue tree, nor does it contrast with enable_queue_tree or remove_queue_tree.

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