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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so safety is largely covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: gameplay pauses and /zero writes become available, and it notes a run-state is returned. It does not say what happens to concurrent play sessions or to a repeated flip, leaving a small gap.

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?

Three short sentences: effect first, then state change, then routing to the alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no padding.

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 single-parameter mode-flip tool, the description covers purpose, side effects, and sibling routing. There is no output schema, and it mentions only that a run-state is returned without describing that shape, plus it is silent on interaction with already-running play sessions.

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% and the `as` parameter is documented exhaustively in the schema (shared-connection caller identity). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 — 'Flip the connected world back into EDIT mode' — with concrete effects (gameplay pauses, /zero writes unlock). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling edit_file, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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 routing: 'This is the mode flip — to change a file, use `edit_file`.' It names the alternative and the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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