trigger_safe_mode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and goal, without disclosing consequences, reversibility, or operational impact—critical for a safe-mode trigger.

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 a single efficient sentence, front-loaded with the key verb, and avoids unnecessary words. It is concise but lacks additional structural detail that could enhance utility.

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 critical emergency action with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits prerequisites, post-trigger behavior, and operational dependencies, which are essential for safe use.

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 50% (reason described, satellite_id not). The description adds no parameter details, leaving satellite_id's purpose entirely unclear and not compensating for the coverage gap.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Triggers' with a clear resource ('emergency spacecraft safe-mode sequence') and purpose ('protect bus hardware'), making the tool's function distinct from sibling diagnostic or isolation tools.

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 implies emergency use through words like 'emergency' and 'protect bus hardware', but it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mentions alternatives among the sibling tools.

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