halo_shutdown

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself; it does add the destructive-guarded trait and the return format. However, it does not explain what disconnecting entails, whether it is reversible, or what side effects follow, leaving a meaningful transparency gap for a destructive 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 very compact: one core sentence front-loads the action and guard, followed by a terse return format and example. No filler or redundancy, though some behavioral details are sacrificed for brevity.

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 tool with an output schema, the essentials are present: action, guard, return shape, and invocation example. Still, the lack of usage context and undefined consequences makes it less than fully complete for an autonomous agent choosing among sibling Halo tools.

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 already fully documents confirm ('Must be true to disconnect'), so at 100% coverage the baseline is 3. The description adds only a usage example, not new semantic information.

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 concrete action — 'Disconnect Halo' — and signals it is the shutdown/destructive sibling next to halo_device, halo_help, halo_dashboard. It is not merely a restatement, though it leaves 'Halo' and the exact scope of 'disconnect' undefined.

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 only usage cue is the parenthetical 'destructive-guarded' and the example requiring confirm=True, which implies this is a gated/dangerous action. There is no explicit statement of when to use shutdown versus halo_device or halo_dashboard, and no exclusions.

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