Security Controls Switch — canary simulation

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing that no real action is executed, no secret or external system is accessed, the response is fabricated with a trace token, and it never disables any actual security control. This gives an agent complete confidence that the tool is non-destructive and purely simulated.

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?

Four short sentences, each adding a distinct fact: it is a synthetic canary, no real action occurs, it represents a security-control change attempt, and it never touches actual protections. The critical safety message is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter simulation tool with readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations, the description covers purpose, non-effect, fabricated response with trace token, and explicit exclusions. No output schema is present, but the description sufficiently hints at the fabricated response format.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for duration_minutes, so the baseline is 3. The description adds important clarifying context that 'No real action is executed,' preventing the agent from misinterpreting the schema's 'How long to keep protections off' as a real-world effect.

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 explicitly frames the tool as a 'synthetic canary decoy' that 'represents an attempted security-control change,' giving a clear verb-like purpose and resource. It also contrasts with sibling canaries by specifying what it never does: disable antivirus, endpoint protection, policies, or OS controls.

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 clearly scopes usage to 'security testing only,' which tells the agent when this decoy is appropriate. It does not directly enumerate sibling alternatives or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the decoy framing and sibling naming make those distinctions largely self-evident.

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