creator_arm_parameter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the significant behavioral effect that drivers are disabled while armed, which goes beyond the schema. It does not mention reversibility, but for a simple state-change tool, this is a meaningful disclosure.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the action and key effect. No unnecessary words 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?

The tool is low complexity with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the purpose and the main behavioral nuance (disabling drivers), while the schema handles parameter details. It is adequately complete, though it does not clarify that one parameter (name or uuid) is expected.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with descriptions for both 'name' and 'uuid'. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, so it meets the baseline of 3 when the schema covers the parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'Arm' with a clear resource ('a parameter') and context ('for deformation editing'). It also notes a key side effect (disables drivers), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'set_parameter' and the inverse 'disarm_parameter'.

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 usage during deformation editing to prepare a parameter, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like 'set_parameter' or 'disarm_parameter'. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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