disable_tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly: it states idempotency, session scoping, the always-on lite core, context reclamation, and the exact contents of the result. This leaves little ambiguity about side effects or behavior.

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 three dense, focused sentences: the action and scope, the behavioral guarantees and result, then the parameter semantics. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 single parameter, the presence of an output schema, and the pointer to enable_tools for the pack-name menu, the description is complete. It even summarizes the result format without needing to restate the output schema.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining that packs takes tool-pack names as defined by enable_tools and accepts the special value ['everything']. This adds meaning beyond the raw string-array schema, though the actual list of pack names is intentionally delegated to enable_tools' description.

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 states a specific action and object: 'Disable previously enabled tool packs for this session and reclaim their context.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling enable_tools by noting it affects only previously enabled packs and by referencing enable_tools for valid pack names.

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 makes the usage context clear: it applies to tool packs previously enabled in the current session, and the lite core is explicitly excluded. It does not provide an explicit 'use this instead of X' rule, but the inverse relationship with enable_tools and the session scope are enough to guide selection.

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