humanize_off

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states that humanize is disabled for the current session but does not explain side effects, reversibility, or any state changes that might affect other tools. The description is minimal and leaves the agent without details on persistence or 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 a single, succinct sentence that directly states the action. There is no fluff or redundant phrasing, and the key information is front-loaded. It is an exemplar of conciseness for a simple tool.

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?

For a simple toggle tool, the description is adequate in stating the core operation, but it omits any interaction with the 'session' parameter (even though the schema covers it) and does not describe expected outcomes or edge cases. Given no output schema and no annotations, a bit more context about the impact would improve completeness, but it is not critically incomplete.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both 'lease' and 'session' parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the high coverage means the baseline of 3 is appropriate; no bonus is needed.

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 (disable) and the resource (humanize for current session). It is concise and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like humanize_on or humanize_status; the opposite relationship is implied by the name and context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention humanize_on, humanize_status, or any conditions for enabling vs disabling. The agent must infer appropriate usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for a clear selection.

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