Set security status

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

Annotations already communicate destructive and read-only traits, and the description adds value by requiring confirm=True and explaining the state values. It does not contradict the annotations and adds a useful guardrail, though it does not detail what happens when confirm is false or how destructive the arming action is.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and every part earns its place: the action, the state mapping, the confirmation requirement, and the cross-reference. There is no redundant or vague filler.

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 rich schema, annotations, and output schema, the description is nearly sufficient for a correct call. It covers the critical confirm flag and state values, but lacks any guidance on failure behavior or external side effects beyond what the annotations imply. Still, an agent can invoke the tool correctly with what is provided.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by explicitly requiring confirm=True and restating the secstatus enum values in a compact form. This goes beyond the schema's default value and helps the agent form a correct call.

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 names the action ('Arm panel') and the resource, and maps the three security states to their numeric values. It is distinct from sibling tools like set_switch_state, though it does not explicitly name any alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives a direct invocation requirement ('Requires confirm=True') and a cross-reference, but does not state when to prefer this tool over related tools or mention exclusions. Usage context is mostly implied by the tool's purpose rather than explicitly explained.

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