set_wallbash_mode

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, and the description adds no further behavioral context such as whether the setting persists across restarts or what visual effect each mode produces.

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?

Four words, front-loaded with the verb, zero filler. Its brevity is appropriate even if the content is thin.

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-enum-parameter setter with annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is barely sufficient to invoke correctly, but an agent still cannot tell what "wallbash" means or how the modes differ without outside knowledge.

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 100% and the single parameter is a four-value enum (theme/auto/dark/light), so the schema carries the meaning. The description adds nothing about what each mode does, which is the one thing it could have contributed.

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?

It states a specific verb ("Set") and resource ("wallbash color mode"), so the action is identifiable, but "wallbash" is never explained and the description does nothing to distinguish it from sibling get_wallbash_mode or set_theme beyond the name itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_wallbash_mode/set_theme, no mention of whether the change is persistent, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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