set_cancel_on_disconnect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it explains the dead man's switch behavior, the grace window, the explicit state requirement, that argless calls are rejected, that API credentials are required, and that it returns the resulting status. This is complete and transparent for a state-setting tool.

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 appropriately sized—every sentence adds value. It front-loads the purpose, explains the behavior, the reason for explicitness, the return, and the requirement, all in a well-structured paragraph without any fluff 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 a single-boolean-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, behavior, return value, authentication requirements, and edge cases (explicit value, argless rejection). Despite being simple, the description covers all relevant context needed for correct invocation.

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 100% with the parameter already described. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the real-world effect (cancels orders on disconnect, grace window) and the rationale for the explicit required boolean. This goes beyond a simple repetition, justifying a score above baseline.

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 (enable or disable cancel-on-disconnect) and the resource (COD for the authenticated account). It distinguishes from the sibling get_cancel_on_disconnect by explicitly focusing on the set operation, and explains the behavioral effect of arming the switch.

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 provides clear context for when to use it (to arm or disarm the dead man's switch) and explicitly notes that the enabled parameter is required with no default. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the sibling get_cancel_on_disconnect makes the distinction obvious, so the usage guidance is strong but could be more explicit about exclusions.

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