Preview ADT Security Action

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false; the description adds that the tool returns a short-lived, one-use token, which is critical behavioral context. It doesn't detail token expiry or error behavior, but the core non-mutating, token-producing nature is transparent.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the return value, then the user-facing instruction. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, prerequisite, and token use; it's complete enough for an agent to call it, though it could mention that the action object must conform to one of the supported mutation shapes.

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%, and the description only says 'one security-system mutation' without explaining the structure of the action object (types like arm/disarm/lock, required fields, or enums). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving parameter meaning entirely to the structural schema.

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 (validate/preview) and resource (security-system mutation) and distinguishes itself from the actual mutation siblings by noting it returns a token required by the matching mutation tool. Slightly less than perfect because it doesn't name the specific sibling tools (e.g., arm-system, control-lock).

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 instructs to show the summary to the user before continuing, and implies it must be called before the matching mutation tool. It doesn't spell out when-not-to-use scenarios, but the prerequisite is clear.

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