disable_tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and covers it well: idempotence ('already-disabled packs are reported, not errors'), no file mutation ('Nothing about the presentation files changes'), and side-effect scope ('only trims what this session's client has to carry'). It also discloses the report output.

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?

Three dense sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, parameter behavior, and side effects/output. No filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: purpose, valid parameter values, behavioral guarantees, side-effect scope, and output semantics are all present. An agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly without further clarification.

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%, so the description must explain the 'packs' parameter. It does: 'Takes the same pack names as enable_tools, or everything.' This gives valid values and a special option, fully compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Switch pack tools back off to shrink the tool surface.' It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling enable_tools by framing it as the inverse action, and clarifies that the lite core always stays on.

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 tool's intended use is clear: reduce the session's tool surface by disabling pack tools. It references enable_tools as the counterpart for pack names, implying when this tool is the appropriate choice, but it does not explicitly list exclusion criteria or compare scenarios.

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