disable_arm

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by warning that the operation has physical side effects, requires a local Alarm Manager, and is gated by an environment variable. It does not detail failure modes or permissions, but the essential risk profile is disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: the action and endpoint come first, followed by the critical warning and parameter clarifications. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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-value details are not the description's job. The description covers the tool's purpose, prerequisites, safety warning, environment gating, and both parameters. Given the tool's mutation nature and physical side effects, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke it 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 coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It clearly explains that host accepts a console name, ID, or composite ID in MAC:numericId format, and that confirm must be true to execute. This fully compensates for the sparse schema.

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 a specific verb ('Disable') and resource ('arm alarm'), and immediately clarifies the action as 'Disarms the system.' It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like enable_arm, since it states the disabling operation and the exact endpoint.

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 gives concrete usage conditions: it requires a local Alarm Manager, warns of physical side effects, and states that confirm must be true and that execution is governed by UNIFI_PROTECT_MUTATIONS_ENABLED. It does not explicitly mention alternatives such as enable_arm, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to call it.

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