manage_circuit_breaker

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

The description adds context about the key format and discovery method, which is useful beyond the idempotentHint annotation. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like potential side effects, error conditions, or response format. With annotations covering idempotency, the description provides moderate additional value.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and key format, and the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded with essential information and efficiently structured.

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 moderate complexity (2 required parameters, idempotentHint annotation, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and key semantics, but lacks details on behavioral outcomes or error handling, which could be helpful for an agent.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal semantics by explaining the key format with an example ('e.g., "0:0"') and linking to get_stateful_faults for key discovery, but does not provide extra details beyond what the schema offers.

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 specific action ('manually trip or reset'), the resource ('a chaos circuit breaker'), and the mechanism ('by its state key'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the unique format of circuit breaker keys and referencing get_stateful_faults for discovery, making it 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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('to manually trip or reset a chaos circuit breaker') and provides a clear alternative ('Use get_stateful_faults to discover active circuit breaker keys'), ensuring the agent knows both the primary use case and how to obtain necessary inputs.

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