disable-rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (disable), clarifies it does not delete the rule, and mentions the return value (confirmation). However, it does not cover error cases (e.g., rule not found) or idempotency, which slightly limits 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, front-loaded with the primary use case, and every sentence adds value. It avoids fluff and provides both guidance and return information in three short sentences.

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 parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, alternatives, and return value. The only gap is lack of error-handling details, but the presence of an output schema partially mitigates this.

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 schema provides a simple 'name' string with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that the name refers to an existing rule and advising use of list-rules to confirm the exact name, giving practical meaning to the parameter.

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 tool's function: turning off an existing Mail rule by name without deleting it. It explicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools like enable-rule and delete-rule, making the purpose unambiguous and easy to differentiate.

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 explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' guidance, listing alternatives for related operations (enable-rule, create-rule, delete-rule) and recommending list-rules to confirm the exact name. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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