Disarm ADT Security System

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value beyond those by warning that the action reduces physical security and requires explicit user approval, which is a real operational constraint an agent must honor.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the prerequisite and the safety consequence front-loaded ahead of any elaboration. Every clause carries operative information.

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 no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a destructive, non-idempotent action the description covers the trigger condition and the approval requirement well; only edge-case handling (invalid or expired token) is absent, which is minor here.

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 50%: confirmationToken is documented in the schema, panelId is not. The description adds meaning by saying the panel must be exact and the token must match the one from prepare-security-action, but it does not explain panelId format or failure behavior for a stale/reused token beyond the schema's 'one-use' note.

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 (disarm), an exact resource scope (one exact panel), and the gating prerequisite (a matching confirmation token from prepare-security-action). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling arm-system without opening either 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?

Explicitly conditions use on prepare-security-action having returned a matching confirmation token, and states the explicit user approval requirement. It does not name a hard alternative (e.g., when to use arm-system instead), but the precondition and situational context are clear.

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