cortex_disable_analyzer

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It declares the tool as 'DESTRUCTIVE' and notes the confirm flag requirement. This provides essential behavioral insight. Additional details like rate limits or auth scope are not provided, but the core destructiveness is transparent.

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 concise sentences. Every word adds value: the action, scope, destructiveness warning, and confirmation requirement. No redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: what it does, destructiveness, and parameter source (ID from list_analyzers). With no output schema, it doesn't explain return values, but for a disable operation, this is likely sufficient. Could explicitly mention it as inverse of cortex_enable_analyzer.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the confirm requirement but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which already explains the default and ID source. The description's mention of 'requires confirm=true' echoes schema info.

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 (remove) an enabled analyzer' and specifies the scope 'from the current organization'. It distinguishes from siblings like cortex_enable_analyzer and cortex_list_analyzers, making the tool's purpose obvious.

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 highlights the destructive nature and the need for confirm=true. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the sibling tool names (e.g., cortex_enable_analyzer) provide context. The safety guard is well emphasized.

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