disable_assistant

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one meaningful trait — the assistant stops accepting delegated tasks — but omits reversibility, permission requirements, and the fate of currently running tasks, all of which matter for a state-changing 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?

The core sentence is front-loaded and tight, but the boilerplate 'Args:' and 'Returns: JSON result' sections add little, especially since an output schema already exists to describe the return value.

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 annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description is too thin: no side effects, no reversibility, no permissions. The output schema covers the return value, so that gap is less important, but the behavioral gaps remain.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only restates the parameter as 'Assistant id', adding no format, source, or lookup guidance (e.g., from find_assistants or list_assistants). It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (disable) on a specific resource (assistant) and adds the operational consequence that it will no longer accept delegated tasks, which distinguishes it behaviorally from the sibling delete_assistant. It does not explicitly contrast with enable_assistant, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to disable versus delete, whether this is reversible, or what happens to in-flight delegated tasks. The consequence clause hints at usage but never states context or alternatives.

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