adapter_kill_switch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that writes freeze first and that drafts and receipts remain readable, but leaves major questions open: whether the action is reversible, what permissions are required, and what the `on` boolean actually does (re-enable vs. disable). These gaps matter for a capability-disabling operation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key behavioral consequences. No filler, no repetition of the title or name.

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 mutation tool with four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. The agent still cannot tell how `on`, `adapter`, and `account_id` interact with `scope`, whether disabling is reversible, or what a successful response looks like.

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 should compensate. It adds one valuable hint—that `scope` takes values family | adapter | account—but says nothing about `on` (boolean toggle semantics), `adapter`, or `account_id`, leaving three of four parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb ('disable') and resource ('one capability scope') and names the three granularity levels (family | adapter | account). No sibling tool performs a similar disable operation, so differentiation is not needed, though the phrase 'Independently disable' is slightly awkward.

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 implies the tool is used to disable a capability at a chosen scope, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no naming of alternatives or when-not to use it. Usage must be inferred from the verb and scope list.

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