set_global_bypass

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one important semantic fact — 'Bypass on = all effects off' — but says nothing about persistence, effect on in-flight audio, or required permissions, so the disclosure is partial.

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 with zero waste; the toggle semantics are front-loaded and the consequence is stated immediately after. Nothing is padded.

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 one-parameter boolean toggle with an output schema available, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. The only meaningful omission is its relationship to bypass_plugin, but the core contract is complete.

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 coverage is 0% and the single boolean parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does so cleanly by defining true = enable and false = disable, which is exactly the semantic an agent needs for this parameter.

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 (enable/disable) and resource (global bypass) and clarifies the true/false mapping. However, it never distinguishes this global toggle from the sibling bypass_plugin, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 implies the tool toggles the global bypass but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. With a similarly named sibling (bypass_plugin) present, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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