deactivate_buddy_interact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses side effects: output wrapping, need for exact relay, and personality drift from altered output. This is valuable behavioral context beyond a basic description.

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 four sentences, clear and front-loaded with the core action. Some metaphorical phrasing could be trimmed, but it remains efficient and informative without excessive length.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context on what the tool does and behavioral expectations. It could mention idempotency or effects on other tools, but these are not critical for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter-specific info but is not expected to. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 clearly states it deactivates buddy observation mode, a specific action. It distinguishes from siblings through context, but does not explicitly contrast with related tools like buddy_talk or pet_buddy.

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 when to use (when deactivating observation) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or situations to avoid. The warning about altering output is a constraint on how to use, not when.

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