ovo_arm_control

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral disclosures. It reveals important consequences (arming places a human in the control loop) and a refusal condition. However, it does not describe disarming effects, success/failure outcomes, or any safety or side-effect details beyond the refusal.

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 two sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the important consequence/precondition following. No word is wasted; it is compact and structured effectively.

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?

The tool is simple (one boolean parameter), but the description lacks several contextual details: what constitutes a 'protocol reference', how it is provided (not in the schema), what happens after successful arming/disarming, and what the return/response is. This could leave an agent uncertain about prerequisites and outcomes.

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%, and the schema only specifies a boolean named 'arm'. The description adds meaning by mapping the boolean to 'arm or disarm', which clarifies true/false semantics. It does not explicitly map boolean values to arm/disarm, but the phrase 'Arm or disarm' strongly implies it.

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 action as 'Arm or disarm closed-loop affective actuation,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ovo_set_policy or ovo_cycle by focusing on the arming state, and adds context about placing a human in the loop.

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 usage (toggling the armed state) and mentions a precondition ('refused without a protocol reference'), but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when-not-to-use. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

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