suppress_market

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral aspects: it is an 'ADMIN kill switch' (high impact), requires a specific scope ('admin:market_suppressions'), clarifies that league_id 0 is a wildcard, and indicates reversibility. It also implies a time-windowed effect via 'for a time window' and 'expiry'. This provides substantial behavioral transparency beyond the bare minimum.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary action, and uses a dash to present an illustrative example. The subsequent sentences cover auth, wildcard scope, reversibility, and a caution in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides a strong overall context: what it does, when to use it, what permissions are needed, how scope works, and that it is reversible. It does not detail the response format or side effects on existing picks, but for a suppression tool these are less critical and the description still gives sufficient operational guidance.

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 100%, so the description doesn't need to restate parameter purposes. It does reinforce league_id semantics ('league_id 0 = all leagues') and gives an example of market_type, but these are already present in the schema. The description adds no novel parameter insights beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.

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 tool's purpose: 'stop Statos emitting a (league × market) for a time window WITHOUT a deploy'. It uses a specific verb ('suppress'), names the resource ('market'), and delivers a clear scope (league × market). It is distinguished from siblings by explicitly referencing the reverse operation (unsuppress_market) and framing itself as an 'ADMIN kill switch'.

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?

Provides a concrete use case ('during the World Cup if 'cards' starts firing 30% below claimed hit rate') and states reversibility ('Reversible via unsuppress_market or expiry'). It also notes the admin prerequisite and advises 'Use sparingly.' While it doesn't explicitly compare to list_suppressions, it gives clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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