disarm_interlock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It clearly states the two core behavioral effects: existing open routes are not disturbed, and no new routes can be created. It does not cover reversibility or authorization details, but the main side effects are transparent.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The main action is stated first, and the clarifying behavioral note is concise. Every sentence earns its place.

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 explains the routing effects but omits the meaning of the required token parameter and does not mention how the operation can be reversed. While the output schema may cover return values, the missing parameter semantics and lack of annotations leave an agent with a meaningful gap for a state-changing tool.

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 schema has one required parameter, 'token', with 0% description coverage, and the tool description never mentions it. The agent is left to guess whether the token is an auth credential, a resource identifier, or something else. With such low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate and did not.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Disarm the interlock.' The second sentence clarifies the operational effect—existing routes remain, new routes are blocked—which makes the tool's role clear and distinguishes it from siblings like arm_interlock and interlock_status without needing their schemas.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you want to stop new routes from being created while keeping current routes up. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives like arm_interlock or clear_all_routes, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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