pm_disable_freeze

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the effect ('open to public') but omits whether the action is reversible, required permissions, side effects on other users, or state changes. This is insufficient for a mutating operation.

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 minimal (one sentence, 4 words). While concise, it sacrifices clarity; a slightly longer description including context would improve usability without being verbose.

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 complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and existence of sibling pm_ tools (e.g., pm_create_market, pm_finalize), the description is incomplete. It does not explain if the market must already be private, what the outcome is, or how it interacts with other market operations.

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 has one parameter 'market' (string, required) with no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds no meaning, leaving agents to guess what value constitutes a valid market identifier (e.g., ID, name, address).

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 'Open private market to public.' clearly states the verb 'Open' and the resource 'private market', which matches the tool name pm_disable_freeze. It identifies the tool's core action, but could better distinguish from siblings like pm_create_market or pm_finalize.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pm_create_market, pm_buy). The description does not specify prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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