Arm ADT Security System

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: this is a gated second step of a two-phase flow requiring a matching token, and it targets exactly one panel, which signals precision and non-reversibility pressure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that puts the action first and the precondition second, with no redundant or filler text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the key gating flow for this destructive mutation. The one omission is any mention of the mode parameter, which an agent must still derive from the enum.

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 coverage is only 33%, with just confirmationToken documented in the schema. The description reinforces panelId ('one exact panel') and the token provenance, but never mentions the 'mode' parameter or its stay/away enum, so it only partially compensates for the coverage 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Arm') and resource ('panel') and even bounds the scope to 'one exact panel,' so the operation is unambiguous. It does not directly differentiate itself from the sibling disarm-system, leaving the Arm/Disarm contrast to be inferred from the wording rather than stated.

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 states a clear precondition for use: the action must follow prepare-security-action returning a matching confirmation token. That is solid sequencing guidance, but there is no explicit note about when not to arm or what mode selection implies.

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