switch_off

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

The description discloses that this is a write operation and that it requires confirmation, which is useful behavioral context beyond the bare tool name. However, with no annotations provided, it does not explain side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what exactly happens when the switch feature is disabled.

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 with no filler. It packs the essential purpose and a key behavioral note, though it is terse enough that some may see it as under-specified rather than concise.

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 write tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far from complete. It lacks parameter semantics, confirmation-flow details, consequences of the action, and any indication of what the response will contain.

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 explain any of the four parameters. The required 'param' field is entirely undocumented, and the confirmation parameters are only vaguely implied by 'requires confirmation' without being mapped to user_code, confirm_token, or confirmation_id.

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 names a specific action ('Disable') and resource ('switch feature'), and identifies it as a write operation. It is distinguishable from siblings like switch_status, switch_query, and switch_on by its imperative 'disable' framing, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 about when to use this tool versus switch_on, switch_query, or other switch-related tools. The implication that you use it when you want to disable the switch feature exists, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit routing decisions.

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