Disable product

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-schema information: the underlying native PUT endpoint and the required edit_products scope, which an agent needs for authorization planning.

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?

Three short clauses, action stated first, followed by scope and confirmation requirement. No filler, though the phrasing is terse enough that it reads more like metadata than guidance.

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?

With no output schema needed and annotations covering the destructive/non-idempotent profile, the description supplies the missing operational facts: required scope and explicit confirmation. Only the interaction with sibling operations (enable/delete) is left unaddressed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents account, confirm, and product_id in detail. The description's mention of per-call confirmation loosely maps to the confirm parameter but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 product), which an agent can distinguish from enable_product and delete_product by name alone. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from those close siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives the precondition (scope: edit_products) and a per-call confirmation requirement, which is useful context. But it never says when to prefer this over delete_product or what happens if the product is already disabled, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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