disarm

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (stop motors), rejection conditions, and return format. It does not detail side effects or reversibility, but for a disarm command this is adequate.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loads the main purpose, and adds constraints and return format without redundancy. Every sentence 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?

Given no parameters, an output schema (implied by return description), and clear behavior, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers purpose, constraints, and expected output.

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 input schema has no parameters (100% coverage), so the description is not required to add parameter details. It adds value by describing the return value format, which is helpful for the agent.

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 ('Disarm the vehicle (stop motors)') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'arm' and 'takeoff'. It also specifies conditions where it is rejected, enhancing clarity.

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 description indicates when the tool is rejected ('in flight', 'in readonly mode'), which guides appropriate usage. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use in a comparative sense, but the context is sufficient.

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