set_switch_confirmation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it sets a configuration mode, but does not mention persistence, permissions, side effects, reversibility, or what each mode actually implies beyond its name. The three mode names (always_ask, paid_only, automatic) are self-descriptive but not explained, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the valid modes. There is no redundancy or filler, and every word contributes to the tool's invocation.

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 one-parameter setter with an output schema, the description is sufficient to construct a valid call: it names the parameter's allowed values. It lacks deeper context about when to choose each mode, but given the simplicity of the tool, the description handles the core invocation need.

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?

The schema provides only a mode property with type string and no enum or description (0% coverage). The description adds the valid values 'always_ask, paid_only, or automatic', which is essential for correct parameter selection. It does not define what each mode does, but it does give the precise allowed inputs.

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 states a specific verb ('Set') and a specific resource ('model-switch prompting') and enumerates the three allowed modes, making the tool's function clear. It doesn't explicitly compare to siblings like set_tier_guidance, but the phrasing is distinctive enough to differentiate it.

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, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisite conditions. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent without any usage direction.

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