set_trading_connection_enabled

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that it mutates Officer control-plane config, that the target is protected and disabled by default, and that an enable is refused with the specific error code loosening_refused because it widens outbound scope. Missing only permissions/auth requirements to reach a 5.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded, followed by the refusal behavior and the mutation/default-state warning in order of importance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers mutation scope, default state, and the failure mode. The one gap is authorization requirements for an Officer control-plane mutation, which an agent would want to know before calling.

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%, so both parameters (connection id, enabled boolean) are already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description adds a little semantic weight by explaining what enabling means ('widens what can be sent') but says nothing specific about the connection 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 and resource: 'Enable or disable a trading connection.' This is unambiguous and clearly a toggle operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from update_trading_connection or create_trading_connection, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'enable or disable', and the refusal note warns that enabling may fail, but the description never names an alternative (e.g., update_trading_connection for other connection fields) nor states prerequisites. An agent can infer when to use it, but nothing is explicit.

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