disable_process

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: in-flight instances keep running to completion, and grants originating from server env configuration are not revoked here. That reframes "destructive" usefully. It stops short of saying what happens if the process is not currently enabled, or what the call returns.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, then the important non-effects. No filler; every clause carries operational meaning.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, this covers purpose, effect on running instances, and one important exemption. Minor gaps remain: permission requirements, behavior when the key does not exist or is already disabled, and whether the effect is tenant-wide.

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 coverage is 100% and the scope parameter already documents the "*" wildcard, so the description's "(ou "*")" largely repeats structured data. It does tie the parameter to the blast radius (all published definitions of the company), but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 ("Retira a liberação") on a specific resource (a process, or "*" for all), and immediately describes the concrete effect: agents can no longer open new instances. This is distinguishable from the sibling enable_process without opening either 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated — an agent can infer this is the tool to block new instances, and the last sentence gives one meaningful exclusion (env-derived grants are not affected). However, it never explicitly names enable_process as the inverse operation or states prerequisites such as required permissions.

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