kill_switch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real value: it discloses persistence and scopes the blast radius (existing orders and brokers untouched). It does not say whether the block is reversible, how it is lifted, whether it is global or per-account, or what authorization is needed — significant gaps for a state-changing safety control.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the positive effect front-loaded and the non-effects immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-argument tool with an output schema, the description covers effect, persistence, and blast radius, which is most of what an agent needs. The missing piece is the reversal path — nothing tells the agent how the block is undone or whether it is permanent.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description's 'local paper orders' wording at least frames what the no-argument call targets.

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?

States a specific verb (block) plus a precise resource and scope (new local paper orders) and adds the qualifier 'persistently'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from cancel_order by saying it does not cancel orders, so an agent can separate it from the sibling set without opening a schema.

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 negatives ('does not cancel orders or affect brokers') route the agent away from cancel_order and toward this tool when the goal is halting new order creation. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it (e.g., emergency halt vs. routine maintenance) or of any prerequisites.

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