engage_kill_switch

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses only the core effect (subsequent orders are rejected). It is silent on reversibility, whether already-open orders are cancelled, whether the state persists across sessions, and whether the required 'reason' is an audit record — critical gaps for what is clearly a high-impact mutation.

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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is good. But the brevity comes from omission rather than discipline — the sentence stops exactly where the risky details would begin.

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 high-impact, likely irreversible control action with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description does far too little. An agent could not safely predict the blast radius of calling it.

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 description never mentions the single required parameter, 'reason', so the agent gets no guidance on what to supply or why it is mandatory. The schema title 'Reason' is the only hint available.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Activa el kill switch') and states the concrete effect ('rechaza todas las órdenes siguientes'), so an agent can tell what the tool does. Sibling differentiation is implicit only in that no sibling resembles it, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus doing nothing, no prerequisite or confirmation guidance, and no note about how an agent should decide to invoke an emergency stop. The reader has to infer that this is for emergency halting of order flow.

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