disable_real_trading

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: it blocks new orders, writes to the audit log, and is idempotent when already in paper mode. This goes beyond the bare action, though it does not cover permissions or the fate of existing orders.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the critical 'Kill switch' concept. Every clause adds value: purpose, effect, audit logging, and idempotency. No filler 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 simple action with no output schema and few parameters, the description adequately covers the main aspects: what it does, the side effect, and idempotency. It stops short of explaining error conditions or return values, but these are not critical for using the tool correctly.

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 only 33% (only account_id is described). The description repeats the 'all' special value but provides no additional meaning for request_id or idempotency_key, despite the term 'idempotent' hinting at the latter. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states a specific verb ('converts') and resource ('trading lock'), and specifies the direction ('real' to 'paper'). The 'Kill switch' framing and the effect 'new orders are not sent' make it unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like enable_real_trading.

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 'Kill switch' label implies emergency use to stop real trading, and the description clarifies the effect (no new orders) and idempotency. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for a specialized action.

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