disable_detection

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds value by specifying the permission requirements, which are not covered by annotations. It could provide more behavioral context (e.g., effects on alerts, rate limits), but with annotations present, the bar is lower, and the permission info is useful.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by permission details. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (destructive mutation with permissions), annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness, and an output schema exists, the description is mostly complete. It includes permission requirements but could benefit from more context on outcomes or error handling. However, with output schema handling return values, it's sufficient.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (detection_id and detection_type). The description does not add any additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or edge cases. Baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Disable a Panther detection') and the mechanism ('by setting enabled to false'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'get_detection' or 'list_detections' by focusing on modification rather than retrieval.

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 includes permission requirements ('Permissions:{"any_of": ["Manage Rules", "Manage Policies"]}'), providing clear context for when to use this tool based on user access. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., compared to other update tools), which prevents a perfect score.

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