disable_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure responsibility, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses idempotency, that the lite core is never disabled, that the result reports disabled packs/token savings/remaining surface, and the failure behavior when a disabled tool is invoked or the host locks the surface.

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 information-dense but every clause earns its place. It front-loads the primary action, then adds idempotency, result contents, parameter semantics, recovery behavior, and policy constraints without redundancy or 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?

For a tool with one parameter and a non-trivial interaction with enable_tools, the description is complete. It covers valid inputs, side effects, return relevance, policy refusal, and the non-dead-end behavior after disabling a pack; the presence of an output schema means return-value details do not need to be repeated.

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?

The input schema only says packs is a required array of strings with 0% description coverage, so the description must supply the meaning. It does: packs accepts the same names as enable_tools or ['everything'], and it directs the agent to enable_tools' description for the actual menu. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Disable previously enabled tool packs for this session and reclaim their context.' It also distinguishes behavior from enable_tools by noting the lite core stays on and that pack names match enable_tools, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does.

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 gives clear operational guidance: it can disable packs by name or ['everything'], it is idempotent, it refuses under KS4XL_PACK_POLICY=locked, and it explains what happens if a tool from a disabled pack is called. It explicitly points to enable_tools for the pack menu and recovery path, covering both when and how to use the tool.

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