disable_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly details the eventual-consistency mechanism, the risk of silent reversion, and the recommended spacing of writes. This is excellent transparency.

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 concise (five sentences) with a clear structure: purpose statement, caution block, and parameter list. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Although an output schema exists (not shown), the description covers the essential action and critical behavioral nuance. It does not mention what the tool returns or failure cases, but the presence of an output schema mitigates the need for that in the description. The tool's context among siblings (e.g., enable_audit) is not explicitly addressed, but the core purpose is complete.

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 compensate. It adds value by clarifying that both 'workspace' and 'warehouse' accept names or GUIDs, which is not evident from the schema (which only provides titles). This is helpful but could be more detailed (e.g., no default values or examples).

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 SQL auditing' on a defined resource ('a warehouse or SQL analytics endpoint'). It uses a strong verb-noun combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like enable_audit and get_audit_settings.

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 warns about eventual consistency and silent reversion, providing a crucial 'when to use with caution' guideline. However, it lacks explicit direction on when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., enable_audit) or when not to use it.

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