disable_sql_pools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does this well by disclosing that configuration is preserved, re-enabling restores it, admin role is required, and the API is beta/preview. It doesn't describe effects on currently running SQL pools or idempotency, but the key behavioral traits are communicated.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. Each line earns its place: preserving configuration, re-enabling via the sibling tool, admin requirement, and beta API warning. 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?

For a low-complexity tool with one required parameter and an output schema present, the description covers prerequisites, reversibility, and API stability. The main gap is the missing workspace identifier format, which prevents fully confident invocation without elsewhere.

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 0%, and the only parameter 'workspace' is a bare string. The description repeats the word 'workspace' but does not clarify whether it expects a workspace ID, name, path, or how to format it. Given the low coverage, the description needed to compensate with parameter semantics and did not.

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 a specific action ('Disable custom SQL Pools for a workspace') with a precise resource and scope. It also differentiates itself from enable_sql_pools and implies a non-destructive distinction from delete_sql_pool by noting configuration is preserved.

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 provides clear context: it is an admin-only, reversible operation, and it explicitly names enable_sql_pools as the re-enabling counterpart. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of delete_sql_pool' or when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for routing.

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