gcp_disable_api

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without elaborating on consequences (e.g., potential irreversibility, impact on dependent services, or whether the operation is asynchronous and requires polling gcp_get_api_operation). The description is too minimal to inform the agent about important side effects.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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 simplicity and the fully described parameters, the description minimally covers the basics. However, it omits important context: the tool likely triggers an asynchronous operation (suggested by sibling gcp_get_api_operation), and there is no mention of this or how to handle the result. The absence of an output schema also means the agent might not know what to expect. Complete for a trivial tool but insufficient given the broader toolset.

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 100% (both projectId and serviceName have descriptions). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline expected for high coverage. It does not clarify format constraints (e.g., serviceName must be the full service name) or provide examples, but it is not misleading.

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 'Disable a GCP API on a project' clearly specifies the action (disable), the resource (GCP API), and the scope (on a project). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like gcp_enable_apis, gcp_list_apis, and gcp_get_api, and is specific enough to avoid confusion with project-level or service account tools.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., gcp_enable_apis, gcp_list_apis). There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the API must be enabled first) or context about whether disabling is safe or reversible. The agent receives no help in deciding when to invoke this tool.

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