npm_disable_proxy_host

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it says nothing about reversibility, required permissions, side effects on active traffic, or the response. Only the word 'Disable' hints at a mutation.

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 four-word phrase with no filler and the resource stated up front. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a state-changing operation where extra context would be cheap to add.

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 toggle with no output schema, the definition is minimally viable. It still omits whether the change is reversible and what post-conditions to expect, which an agent would want before invoking a mutation.

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 100% and the single parameter host_id is fully documented as 'The ID of the proxy host to disable', so the description adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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') and resource ('proxy host'), which is enough to distinguish it from npm_enable_proxy_host and npm_delete_proxy_host at a glance. However, it offers no explicit contrast with those siblings, e.g. that disabling is a reversible state change rather than a deletion.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of npm_enable_proxy_host or npm_delete_proxy_host, nor any precondition (host must exist, must currently be enabled). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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