fxa_set_thinking

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the indicator is automatically cleared by fxa_reply, which is a useful behavioral trait beyond the raw toggle. It could specify whether on:false also clears the indicator, but the phrase 'Show or hide' implies both states.

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 three sentences, each adding value: the action, the call pattern, and the clearing behavior. No filler or 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 tool is a simple boolean setter with no output schema. The description covers its purpose, usage context, and interaction with fxa_reply, making it complete for an agent to select and call 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% (the 'on' property has no description in the schema), so the description must compensate. It gives a concrete example ('on:true') and the first sentence clarifies that true means show and false means hide, though not explicitly stated. For a single boolean parameter, this is adequate.

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 opens with 'Show or hide the thinking indicator in the trader's panel,' which precisely identifies the action and target. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fxa_candles or fxa_reply, none of which manage this indicator.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Call with on:true before a long lookup,' establishing a clear when-to-use scenario. It also mentions 'fxa_reply clears it automatically,' providing an interaction note with a sibling tool, though it does not explicitly enumerate exclusions.

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