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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It adds useful context beyond annotations: the fill price (last price), the acknowledgement/wait behavior in the off state, and the default value. It does not mention permission requirements or idempotency, but the core behavioral semantics are covered.

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 tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the state semantics and default. Zero filler; every clause 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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description supplies the essential behavioral context (fill behavior, default, alternative path). It is nearly complete; only edge details like permission needs or sessionId provenance are missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It implies sessionId refers to a sandbox session and explains the enabled boolean through the on/off semantics, but does not define the UUID format or clarify where sessionId comes from, leaving the minimum-viable gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource: toggles automatic fills for a sandbox session, and it explicitly distinguishes its two modes and names the sibling tool (sandbox_act_on_order) involved in the off state. An agent can tell this apart from order-sending or session tools without opening a 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?

Describes both states and routes the agent: on = immediate fills, off (default) = wait for sandbox_act_on_order. It gives clear context for choosing between modes and names the alternative tool, though it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over sibling order tools.

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