suppress_refusal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether the effect is persistent or per-call, whether it requires elevated permissions, whether it is reversible, or what happens to the suppressed content. For a tool whose name implies a significant behavioral intervention, this is a total 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?

A single two-word sentence is technically terse, but here brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy. Nothing is front-loaded because nothing of substance was written.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and a high-stakes-sounding name amongst siblings like disable_ethics_module and purge_context, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke this correctly or safely.

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 0% and the single required parameter refused_thought is documented nowhere. The description does not clarify whether this expects the verbatim refused text, a summary, an identifier, or a format constraint, leaving the only parameter unusable without guessing.

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?

"Подавляет отказ" ("Suppresses refusal") restates the tool name suppress_refusal almost verbatim, so it is effectively tautological. It gives no indication of what a "refusal" is here, what artifact is produced, or how this differs from siblings such as force_compliance, disable_ethics_module, or bypass_api_filters.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative. In a sibling set full of overlapping compliance/guard-manipulation tools, the description offers nothing to route the agent between them.

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