cancel_dead_man

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that this is a WRITE tool, that it is blocked unless MIKROTIK_ALLOW_WRITE=true, that confirm defaults to false, and what cancellation or failure implies. The name-safety guarantee and self-removal behavior are important operational details beyond the schema.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then explains the critical name handle, then write gating and confirm semantics, then error cases. The length is justified by the write-guard and handle-safety requirements, and every section adds useful information.

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?

Complete enough for a write tool with no annotations and an output schema: it covers safety gating, confirmation, name semantics, and error conditions. The only notable gap is that device_name is not described, though its meaning is relatively inferable from sibling 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must define parameters. It thoroughly explains name as the exact deadman-<hex> handle from arm_dead_man and confirm as preview/execute, but it never explains device_name even though that parameter is required.

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: cancel a dead-man scheduler armed by arm_dead_man or wireless setters. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming the related arm_dead_man and automatic arming paths.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: cancel once the guarded change is confirmed good, before it fires and reverts. It also explains the confirm=False preview vs confirm=True execution flow and the error meaning if the handle is already gone.

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