gatekeeper_nginx_disable

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context by specifying 'unlink' behavior and confirming the config file is preserved, which aligns with destructiveHint=false. It doesn't detail side effects like nginx reloads, but with annotations carrying the safety profile, this is sufficient.

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?

A single sentence that conveys the action, the resource, and the key non-destructive constraint. No filler or redundancy; the most important scoping information ('without removing the config file') is placed at the end but still front-loads the core verb and object.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: disable/unlink, preserve config. It does not define 'slug' format or mention prerequisites (e.g., permissions), but these are minor for a tool of this simplicity and can be inferred from context.

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 description does not explicitly explain the 'slug' parameter. However, since there is only one required parameter and the context is 'nginx site', it is reasonable to infer that slug identifies the site. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, but the single-parameter design makes the meaning recoverable.

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 uses a specific verb ('Disable') and a precise resource ('an nginx site'), and clarifies the operation as 'unlink' while explicitly noting 'without removing the config file.' This directly distinguishes it from siblings like gatekeeper_nginx_remove (which removes the config) and gatekeeper_nginx_enable (which activates the site).

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 provides clear context: use this tool to disable/unlink a site while preserving the config file. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the non-destructive phrasing implies the condition under which this tool is preferred over a full removal. This meets 'clear context, no exclusions' but stops short of explicit alternate routing.

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