enable_arm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It includes a WARNING about 'physical side effects' of arming the alarm, and discloses the dependency on a local Alarm Manager and the mutation flag. This goes beyond the schema to inform the agent of consequences and prerequisites.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, then a warning and parameter explanations. All sentences add value with no 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 description covers purpose, physical side effects, prerequisites, and parameter semantics. The output schema exists, so return details are covered elsewhere. Minor ambiguity about how the 'selected profile' is determined, but the description is otherwise complete for a 2-parameter mutation.

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 0%, but the description explains both parameters: host format ('MAC:numericId') and confirm's role ('must be true to execute'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of property descriptions.

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 clearly states the action: 'Enable the arm alarm using the selected profile' and includes the exact endpoint. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'disable_arm' and the arm-profile CRUD operations by focusing specifically on the arming action.

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?

It provides clear preconditions: 'requires a local Alarm Manager' and 'confirm: must be true to execute', and notes that it is 'Governed by UNIFI_PROTECT_MUTATIONS_ENABLED'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'disable_arm', but the context makes the appropriate use obvious.

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