bpb_set_edit_mode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the setting is persistent across subsequent calls, what it actually gates (which later operations honor it), whether it can be reset, or how it interacts with already-open editors — all essential for a stateful mode-switch tool.

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?

A single compact sentence with the mode list front-loaded, no filler. The parenthetical glosses are somewhat self-evident from the token names, so there is a small amount of redundancy, but nothing wasteful.

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?

With one optional enum parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is thin but the surface area is small. The gap is that it omits what 'edit mode' governs and whether the change persists — the one piece of behavior an agent actually needs to use this 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% and the enum values carry no inline descriptions, so the description has to compensate — and it largely does: it glosses all/bags/items and, critically, explains that default/bag/item are accepted aliases, which is knowledge the schema enum alone cannot convey. It stops short of noting that the parameter is optional and defaults to 'all', which is left to the schema.

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+resource ('切换编辑模式' / switch edit mode) and enumerates the mode values with plain-language glosses (all/bags/items). It does not, however, distinguish this from the several sibling tools that look related (bpb_edit_items, bpb_edit_bags, bpb_edit_all, bpb_open_item_edit, bpb_open_backpack_edit), so an agent cannot tell from the text alone whether this is a global switch or a per-editor operation.

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?

It never says when to call this versus the many edit-related siblings (bpb_edit_items, bpb_edit_bags, bpb_edit_all, bpb_open_*_edit). The mode list is parameter documentation, not usage guidance — there is no condition, prerequisite, or exclusion stated.

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