set_kill_switch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly explains the behavioral impact: active=true halts all trading, active=false resumes, and dry_run controls whether changes are applied. This is sufficient for a safety tool, though additional detail on reversibility would be beneficial.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences that cover all key points without any fluff. Every sentence is essential and front-loaded for quick parsing.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior adequately: the two states of active, the dry_run default, and usage context. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, though additional detail on what 'halting all trading' entails could be added.

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 description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the effect of active (halt vs resume) and the default and override behavior of dry_run. The reason parameter already has schema description, so the 33% coverage is supplemented well.

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 states the tool sets the engine's kill-switch state and clearly differentiates between active=true (halting all trading) and active=false (resuming). This directly addresses the purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like get_kill_switch.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use for emergency halt and for resuming after manual review.' It gives when-to-use guidance but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, which would improve the score to 5.

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