disable_workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state an authorization requirement ('Requires admin_write permission'), which is useful, but it does not explain whether disabling is reversible, what side effects occur, or how it affects workspace users and related data.

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 compact: the first sentence names the action and target, and the second provides the permission requirement. There is no filler or redundancy, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 mutating administrative tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague 'profile' parameter, this description is too sparse. It omits the consequences of disabling, reversibility, behavioral expectations, and any alternative routing, leaving the agent without enough context to use it safely and correctly.

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 adds no meaning for either parameter. 'workspace_name' is intuitive from the name, but 'profile' is entirely unexplained, and the description does not clarify how or whether these parameters relate to the disabling operation.

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 states a specific action ('Disable') and a specific resource ('Survey Solutions workspace'), so an agent can tell this apart from enable_workspace or delete_workspace by the verb alone. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling workspace-management tools, but the purpose is 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?

No guidance is given on when to use disable_workspace versus enable_workspace, update_workspace, or delete_workspace. The only usage-related information is the admin_write permission requirement, which is a prerequisite rather than a decision rule.

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