vmix_trigger_arm

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description reveals important behavior: no startup/reconnect catch-up, persistence across restarts being disarmed, and cancellation of pending delayed actions on disarm. These are non-obvious side effects that materially affect how an agent reasons about the call.

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?

Three compact sentences with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the behavioral caveats are compressed. Every sentence adds information the agent needs.

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 simple two-parameter stateful toggle with annotations already covering safety, the description covers the core purpose, the restart behavior, and the key side effect of disarming. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 0%, so the description bears the burden of explaining parameters. It implies that 'id' refers to a saved managed trigger and that 'armed' maps to the arm/disarm verb, and it adds a meaningful effect of armed=false. However, it never explicitly defines the id format, source, or full semantics of the boolean, leaving a partial 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?

The description uses a specific verb pair ('arm/disarm') and a precise resource ('saved managed trigger'), making the operation distinct from the sibling trigger_save and trigger_delete tools. It clearly conveys that this tool toggles state on an existing trigger rather than creating or destroying one.

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 clear context for when this tool matters: restarting MCP disarms all triggers, so an agent knows to call this to re-arm them. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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