disable_personal_access_token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a concrete detail that requests respond with an X-PAT-Disabled header, which is useful. However, it does not explain what disabling does to the token (e.g., whether it revokes access, is reversible, or affects existing sessions). This is a modest but incomplete 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose and a key behavioral detail. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is somewhat minimal but acceptable. It lacks details on reversibility, side effects, or typical use cases, but the name and description together provide a baseline understanding. More completeness would be expected for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter, but the description 'ID of the resource' is generic and does not specify it as the PAT's ID. The tool description does not clarify this further. Since the parameter is intuitively the token ID, the schema description is adequate, meriting the baseline score of 3.

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 a PAT') and the specific resource (personal access token). It also identifies the scope as 'Super-admin', and the combination of verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like enable_personal_access_token and delete_personal_access_token.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like enable or delete. It only notes 'Super-admin' as a precondition, but offers no context regarding scenarios where disabling is preferred over deleting, or any exclusion criteria. This is below the minimum viable guidance.

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