disable_interface

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: write guard, two-phase preview/apply semantics, default confirm value, and the failure mode when the interface is absent ('it is never created'). It stops short of describing reversibility (use enable_interface) or any output shape, but the safety-critical behavior is disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the operational constraints. Every clause earns its place, though the multi-line formatting is slightly looser than a tight two-sentence form.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the guard, the two-phase confirm, and the key failure mode. The only real gap is the semantics of device_name.

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%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains confirm's default and two-phase meaning and the not-found behavior of interface_name, but device_name is never described, leaving one of three parameters undocumented in both places.

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+resource ('Disable a network interface by name') and even names the underlying change ('sets disabled=yes'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling enable_interface without opening its schema.

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?

Gives explicit operating flow: blocked unless MIKROTIK_ALLOW_WRITE=true, call with confirm=False for a preview, then confirm=True to apply. It does not name enable_interface as the reversing alternative, so the when-not/undo side is left to inference.

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