disarm_stim

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does note that the action takes effect immediately, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't explain what happens to in-progress stimulation, whether this is reversible via arm_stim, or whether specific backend/permission state is required.

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 extremely concise at two short sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core action and adds a single behavioral note about immediacy. Efficient and to the point, though slightly terse.

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 tool is relatively simple (2 params, 1 required) and has a full output schema, so the burden is moderate. For a state-changing operation on stimulation with no annotations, the description could reasonably explain what disarming means for ongoing operations and how it relates to the arm/send/stim lifecycle, but it is adequate for a straightforward revocation action.

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%, with both parameters (session_id and backend) having descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies. The term 'disarm' clearly implies reversible revocation related to arm_stim, which is self-explanatory.

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 'Revoke permission to stimulate. Takes effect immediately,' which clearly indicates a permission-revocation action for stimulation. However, it doesn't explicitly reference the session context or distinguish it from the sibling 'arm_stim' among many stim-related tools, and the domain-specific term 'stimulate' may not be universally understood.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings like arm_stim, send_stim_train, and stim_status, there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a backend must be attached/armed first) or what circumstances warrant disarming. 'Takes effect immediately' hints at immediacy but gives no context about sequencing with other operations.

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