pcs_resource_disable

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the core disable action but does not mention side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, impact on running services, or command output. For a mutating operation this is a significant gap.

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?

A single sentence conveys the core operation and command form without filler. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. It fails to mention when to use this vs. enable/move/ban, what happens after disabling, whether it is reversible, or what the command returns. The high schema coverage helps with parameters but not with behavioral or operational context.

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 all parameters. The description adds only mild value by showing the command syntax and suggesting that 'resource' and 'all' are alternative ways to target the operation. This is useful but not extensive.

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 action ('Disable'), the target ('resource or all resources'), and the exact command syntax. It differentiates this tool from the sibling enable/move/ban tools by making the disable operation explicit.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives like pcs_resource_enable, pcs_resource_move, or pcs_resource_ban. The description implies use for disabling resources but gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for choosing among siblings.

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