activate_emergency

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

No annotations are provided, and the description offers minimal behavioral detail. It does not disclose side effects, irreversible consequences, required permissions, or what happens upon activation. For a critical emergency operation, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that concisely conveys the core action. It is appropriately sized, though it could provide more context while remaining concise.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It lacks information about activation semantics, valid_until format, trust_epoch meaning, and potential effects. The description does not fully equip an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 only 25%, with only trigger_evidence having a description. The tool description adds 'with evidence' but does not explain pathway_id, trust_epoch, or valid_until. The parameter names give some hints, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 the tool's function: activating a pre-authorized emergency pathway. The verb 'activate' and resource 'emergency pathway' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling 'define_emergency_pathway' which handles creation.

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 use when an emergency pathway is pre-authorized and needs activation, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor mention prerequisites like prior definition of the pathway. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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