Start safety cooldown

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It does not disclose effects (e.g., whether it locks funds, requires permissions, has time delays, or impacts other operations), rate limits, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely involves system state changes.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity implied by 'safety module cooldown' in a lending context, no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool does behaviorally, what it returns, or how it integrates with sibling tools, failing to provide sufficient context for safe and effective use.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description does not add param details beyond the schema, but this is acceptable as there are no parameters to document, aligning with the baseline for zero 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 'Begin safety module cooldown' states the action (begin) and target (safety module cooldown), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'safety module cooldown' entails or how it differs from sibling tools like 'strato.lending.safety-redeem' or 'strato.lending.safety-stake', making it vague rather than clearly differentiated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, timing, or context for initiating a cooldown, leaving the agent without usage instructions. It implies a specific action but offers no exclusionary or comparative advice.

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