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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the paper-only guardrail, the exact order lifecycle triggered by verdict entry and exit/opposite-entry events, the fact that per-timeframe rules never close a skill-opened position, defaults for quantity and stops, and the pause/restore interaction with replace_timeframe_rules and paused_rule_ids.

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 a dense but efficient paragraph: the primary action and paper-only restriction are front-loaded, and every subsequent clause adds operational meaning about order lifecycle, defaults, rule pausing, and state retrieval. There is no filler.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough to call correctly: it covers the account restriction, event-driven behavior, defaults, rule interactions, and how to inspect current state. It even mentions the response field paused_rule_ids, compensating for the missing output schema.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains that enabled=true is idempotent, that omitting quantity falls back to the paper default notional, and how replace_timeframe_rules and paused_rule_ids interact with restore_rule_ids.

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: turning a per-symbol integrated skill on or off for the user's PAPER account, with real accounts explicitly refused. It references related tools (decker.get_assembly for entry events, decker.get_user_skills for current state) but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby sibling decker.set_skill_overlay, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 clearly explains the operational context: this only affects paper accounts, enabling opens paper orders from verdict entry events, disabling pauses the skill, and current state should be checked via decker.get_user_skills. It does not give explicit when-not-to-use guidance versus decker.set_skill_overlay, but the paper-only constraint and state-lookup pointer provide strong usage direction.

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