Quarantine or release an agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this mutates a live environment, requires confirm: true (else it is a dry run), and specifies the underlying command. It also mentions authentication via the active pac auth profile. This is thorough for a mutating tool with no structured safety hints.

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 compact sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: purpose, admin context, command, mutation warning, and confirm requirement. No filler or redundancy.

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 an 8-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational aspects: how to perform a real change (confirm), what the tool does (quarantine/release), and the admin context. Remaining parameters (cwd, environment, timeoutSeconds, background) are fully documented in the schema, so the description need not repeat them. It is sufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 already documents all parameters. The description does not add much beyond the schema: it mentions 'requires confirm: true' but that is already in the confirm parameter's description. It repeats the quarantine/release semantics already present. Since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; no significant added meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Put an agent in quarantine or release it.' It also specifies it is an 'Admin operation' and names the underlying command ('pac copilot quarantine'), which clearly distinguishes it from other agent-related operations. No ambiguity or tautology.

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 provides clear context: 'Admin operation' and 'Mutates a live environment' indicate when it should be used (admin tasks requiring a real change). It also states the confirm: true requirement, which is a key usage condition. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or specify 'instead of X', so it stops short of full guidance. Still, the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to choose it for quarantine/release tasks.

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