set_security

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the on parameter's semantics and the confirmation requirement, but does not disclose potential side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the action and key constraint. No unnecessary words.

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 simplicity (boolean toggle with confirmation), the description covers the essential behavior. An output schema exists (not provided but signaled) which likely documents return values, so the description is adequate. Could mention what happens if confirm is not set.

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 compensates by explaining that on=true arms and on=false disarms, and that confirm must be true. Device_id is not explained, but the key boolean parameters are well-described.

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: setting (on=true) or removing (on=false) car security. It provides a specific verb-resource mapping and differentiates from sibling tools like set_engine or set_heater by focusing on security.

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 tool description explicitly states that using the tool requires confirm=true, which is a clear prerequisite. It implies the context (arming/disarming a car) but does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it or compare with alternatives.

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