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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral load and does it well: it discloses the ongoing cost (1 fuel per tick), the visibility effects on passive views, the counterplay condition (an active scan exceeding total scan defense), and the combat interaction. The cloak-strength formula and the explicit caveat that sensor dampeners add separate scan reduction not reflected in the reported value are exactly the kind of non-obvious detail an agent could otherwise mis-model.

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 action is front-loaded in the first three words, and nearly every clause carries operational information. The cost is structural: the entire body is one long parenthetical, which makes the fuel cost and battle restriction harder to scan than they should be.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does enough to compensate by explaining what the reported cloak strength represents. It leaves minor gaps: it does not say what the tool returns on toggle, nor what the failure mode looks like when no cloak module is installed.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, and it misses a real ambiguity the schema leaves open: 'enable' (boolean) and 'quantity' (1/0) are alternative encodings of the same action with no stated precedence when both are supplied.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Toggle cloaking device') and immediately narrows the concept to a concrete capability rather than restating the name. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like scan, espionage, attack, or battle because it explains what cloaking does relative to those systems.

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?

Gives hard prerequisites (needs a cloak module or integrated cloak) and explicit when-not conditions: you cannot engage while in_battle, and attacking or engaging drops the cloak. It also names timing windows where toggling is legal (mid-jump, mid-travel, Pathfinder drift). It does not route the agent to any alternative sibling for stealth-adjacent needs, which keeps it below a 5.

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