set_kill_switch

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: active=true halts all trading, active=false resumes, and the dry_run default and effect. It clarifies that dry_run=false applies the change. It does not cover permissions or audit log details, but the core behavioral nuance is well-explained.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then parameter semantics, then usage. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the core behavior, required parameter, and dry_run nuance. It doesn't mention return values or the reason parameter beyond what the schema provides, but the essential context for selecting and invoking the tool is present.

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 only 33% (reason only), but the description adds meaningful semantics for active (true halts, false resumes) and dry_run (default true, explicit false applies the change). This compensates for the schema gap on two of three parameters.

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 tool 'Set the engine's kill-switch state' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_kill_switch (getter) and cancel_all/flatten_positions (other emergency tools) by focusing on halting and resuming trading.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use for emergency halt and for resuming after manual review.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or directly name alternative tools, so it falls short of the full 5.

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