npm_disable_proxy_host

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Disable' and 'without deleting it', which hints at non-destructiveness but does not explain side effects (e.g., what happens to traffic, whether the host can be re-enabled, or whether the operation is reversible). The description is too sparse to understand the implications of disabling.

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 that delivers the core action and a key clarification in a compact format. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Despite the simple interface (one parameter), the lack of annotations and output schema place the burden on the description. It does not explain what 'disabling' entails, whether there are error conditions, or how the id is used. The tool is minimally described but leaves critical behavioral and usage context ambiguous.

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?

The input schema has one required integer 'id' with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention the 'id' parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer that it identifies the proxy host. Given low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining the parameter's meaning or constraints.

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 with a specific verb ('Disable') and resource ('proxy host'), and explicitly distinguishes from deletion with '(without deleting it)'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like npm_delete_proxy_host and sets expectation for non-destructive behavior.

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 phrase 'without deleting it' implies a use case where the host should be temporarily disabled rather than removed, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over enable/delete. It lacks criteria such as 'use this to stop traffic while preserving configuration' or mention of prerequisites.

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