disable_nat_rule

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the write guard, the dry-run/confirm flow, the safety guarantee ('never creates a rule'), and the specific failure mode (`AmbiguousResourceError`) when multiple rules match.

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-loads the purpose, then the guard, then the invocation flow; each sentence carries distinct information. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary due to the back-reference to `enable_nat_rule`, but nothing is 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the remaining gaps: guard condition, preview/apply flow, resolution rules, and error cases. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 explains `comment` (the resolution key), `chain` (srcnat/dstnat narrowing), and `confirm` (default false, preview vs apply). It only leaves `device_name` implicit, which is a minor gap for a 4-parameter tool.

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 and resource ('Disable an EXISTING firewall NAT rule'), names the underlying operation (`/ip/firewall/nat set disabled=yes`), and specifies resolution semantics (by `comment`, optionally narrowed by `chain`). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `enable_nat_rule` it is paired with.

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?

Explicitly explains the two-step invocation pattern (confirm=False for preview, confirm=True to apply) and the enabling precondition (MIKROTIK_ALLOW_WRITE=true). It also states when errors occur (no match, ambiguous match), which tells the agent what input guarantees are needed.

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