disable_agent

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds the ADMIN auth requirement, which is genuine value, but says nothing about what disabling actually does (agent state, in-flight tasks, reversibility) for a mutation tool.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, minimal annotations, and an undocumented parameter, the description is too thin. It should at least describe the effect of disabling and the agent_name argument.

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 0% and the single 'agent_name' parameter is undocumented. The description adds no detail on whether this is a name, ID, or path, or how it is resolved, leaving the agent to guess the accepted format.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Disable an agent'), so the operation is unambiguous and pairs naturally against the sibling 'enable_agent'. It does not explicitly name that sibling or delimit scope, so it falls short of a 5.

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 '(ADMIN)' tag signals a required privilege level, which is useful, but there is no guidance on when to disable vs. use a sibling like enable_agent, pause_dispatcher, or release_task. No preconditions or exclusions are stated.

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