mngt_defenseworm

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is a write and requires confirmation, which is important safety-relevant context. It stops short of explaining what the confirmation entails, side effects, or reversibility, but it is not misleading.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The write and confirmation warning is placed parenthetically, which is compact and appropriately scannable.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and the required parameter is self-explanatory via the enum. However, the optional confirmation-related parameters are not explained, and there is no output schema or return-behavior note, so an agent may not know what response to expect or how to complete the confirmation flow.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate for the four parameters. 'Enable/disable' loosely maps to the required onoff enum, but user_code, confirm_token, and confirmation_id are entirely unexplained, leaving the confirmation workflow ambiguous.

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 identifies the action (enable/disable) and the resource (worm defense), with a helpful write/confirmation tag. It is unambiguous about basic purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with related sibling tools such as dos_activate or mngt_bfp.

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 phrase 'Enable/disable worm defense' implies the obvious use case: use this tool when worm defense needs to be turned on or off. It also notes that it is a write operation requiring confirmation, which is a meaningful precondition. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives.

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