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. It discloses that the tool disables without deleting and returns a confirmation. It does not mention any destructive behavior, which is appropriate as it is non-destructive. There is no contradiction. However, it could add context on whether the rule remains visible or its state after disabling.

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, using two sentences to convey purpose, usage guidelines, and a helpful tip. Every sentence is value-adding, and it is front-loaded with the primary use case.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers the main aspects: action, return type, and precondition. It does not mention error handling or what happens if the rule doesn't exist, which might be covered in the output schema. Slight room for improvement.

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 single parameter 'name' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description adds value by specifying it is the exact rule name and advising to use list-rules to confirm. This helps the agent understand the required input beyond the schema's minimal definition.

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 purpose: disabling an existing Mail rule by name without deleting it. It uses a specific verb (disable) and a resource (Mail rule). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like enable-rule, create-rule, and delete-rule.

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 guidance on when to use (turning off an existing rule) and when not to use (for enabling, creating, or deleting). It mentions specific alternative tools (enable-rule, create-rule, delete-rule) and advises using list-rules to confirm the exact rule name.

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