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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description goes further by disclosing the operational consequence (strategies resume live trading after reset), the confirmation requirement, the free cost, and that external calls execute under the apikey identity. It omits whether the reset is reversible or what happens to pending orders, but the key risk-bearing behavior is surfaced.

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 critical constraint (manual reset, confirmation required) is front-loaded, and every clause carries information. Slight redundancy from repeating '写操作' twice in parenthetical asides, but no filler otherwise.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: authorization input, confirmation requirement, post-action consequence, and cost. It would be complete with a note on obtaining the recoveryCode or the current breaker state required before calling.

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 single parameter already carries a description ('解除码（必填）'), so the description only restates that recoveryCode is mandatory. No added meaning about where the code comes from or its format, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb+resource pair — manually lifting (解除) a circuit breaker — and frames it as the human-triggered counterpart to the automated breaker state. It never explicitly names the sibling platform_set_breaker as its inverse, so an agent must infer the pairing, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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 conveys that this is a manual intervention requiring confirmation and a recoveryCode, which implies the high-friction context in which it should be used. It does not state when NOT to use it, nor does it contrast with platform_set_breaker or risk-config tools, so selection between related tools is left to inference.

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