set_kill_switch

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must carry behavioral disclosure. It reveals the dry-run default and its effect (dry_run=true default, explicit false applies the change), the engine-level scope (not per-account), and the refusal of paper tokens. This is substantial, but it does not mention side effects like audit logging (though the schema hints at reason recording), persistence across restarts, or failure conditions, which would make it complete.

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 with zero waste. The first sentence states the core action and behavior; the second covers the dry-run default, the use case, and the scope restriction. Information density is high and the most critical operational detail (scope refusal) is front-loaded at the end, keeping it memorable.

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 setter with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: the state change semantics, the dry-run safety mechanism, the intended use cases, and the access scope restriction. Nothing an agent needs to correctly call the tool is missing.

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% (only reason has a description). The description directly explains the meaning and effect of the two undocumented parameters: active (true halts, false resumes) and dry_run (default true, explicit false applies). This fully compensates for the schema gap and adds decision-relevant semantics beyond the raw boolean types.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Set') and a precise resource ('engine's kill-switch state'), then immediately clarifies the effect of each boolean value. It distinguishes this from the sibling get_kill_switch by the write nature of the operation, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly says 'Use for emergency halt and for resuming after manual review,' which is a direct when-to-use instruction. It also states a hard constraint: 'only live scope may call this -- paper tokens are refused even with dry_run=false,' which is critical operational guidance that the agent must know before invocation.

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