calendar_feed_disable

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the key destructive consequence plainly: every link stops working and subscribed calendars stop updating. It also reveals the response shape ({ enabled: false }) even though there is no output schema. It omits reversibility/idempotency and auth requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two tight clauses: the effect first, the return value second. Every word earns its place, no preamble 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 zero-param toggle with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, the user-visible consequence, and the return payload. The only gap is that reversibility (via calendar_feed_enable) is not stated, which matters for a subscription-killing action.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter confusion and the empty schema is unambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb (turn off) applied to a specific resource (the calendar subscription), and describes the concrete effect — all links stop working and subscribed calendars stop updating. An agent can immediately distinguish this from calendar_feed_enable and calendar_feed_get.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when the user wants to stop the subscription. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of the calendar_feed_enable sibling as the way back, and no prerequisites (e.g. whether a feed must exist first).

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