pool_member_disable

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses the graceful drain behavior, the one-line return result, and the safe preview mode when confirmed is not true. It clearly explains the destructive action and its confirmation requirement without contradicting annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose and effect first, then usage guidance, then safety. Every sentence adds distinct value, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the action's purpose, usage context, prerequisites, reversal command, return style, and safety confirmation. With an output schema and complete parameter schema present, no essential information is missing for the agent to call this tool 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 100% and each parameter already has detailed semantics, including confirmed's preview vs. actual disable behavior. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond reinforcing the confirmed=True safety requirement, which is already present in 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Disable a pool member with graceful drain' and immediately explains the behavioral effect: existing connections complete, no new traffic. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling pool_member_enable by noting it reverses the action.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use for maintenance or rolling deployments' and instructs the agent to 'run pool_members first for the server IP' and use 'pool_member_enable to reverse it.' This tells the agent both when to use the tool and what to do before/after.

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