gmail_disable_cse_keypair

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains that disabling prevents signing and decryption, and that the key pair can be deleted after 30 days. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the input schema.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the action and then provides key behavioral details. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the effects. It mentions the 30-day deletion window, adding useful context. It does not explain potential return values or authorization requirements, but these are not essential given the tool's simplicity.

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 covers 100% of parameters (one parameter keyPairId with description). The description does not add additional semantics about how to obtain or format the keyPairId, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Disable' and the resource 'CSE key pair', and specifies the effects (prevents signing and decryption) and the consequence (allows deletion after 30 days). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gmail_enable_cse_keypair and gmail_obliterate_cse_keypair.

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 implies usage through the lifecycle information (disabling enables later deletion), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over gmail_enable_cse_keypair or gmail_obliterate_cse_keypair. No direct alternatives or exclusion criteria are provided.

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