disable_writes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the operation but not the consequences: whether writes are disabled globally or per session, if it is reversible (presumably via enable_writes), or what happens to in-flight operations. The secret requirement is a precondition, not a behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient and easy to parse, though it omits important details that would make it more useful.

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 safety-critical tool that globally disables writes, the description is too sparse. It does not mention reversibility, scope, or side effects, and although an output schema exists, the description provides no context about what the call returns. An agent might invoke it without understanding the full impact.

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 coverage is 0% and the description only says 'Requires the write secret', which adds a little meaning ('write secret' vs just 'secret') but does not explain what the secret is, how to obtain it, or its format. The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 ('Disable write operations') and the resource affected, which is distinct from siblings like enable_writes. It also mentions a key precondition (the write secret), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 like disable_dev_mode or enable_writes. It only states a prerequisite (the secret), not the context or circumstances under which an agent should invoke it.

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