mode_set

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the meaning of each mode (rule, global, direct), which is helpful, but it does not mention side effects, persistence, reversibility, or permission requirements. This is partial transparency but not comprehensive.

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 concise and well-structured: a single introductory sentence followed by a bulleted list of mode definitions. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter setter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: the mode values and their effects. It lacks minor context such as whether the mode change is persistent or scoped to a session, but overall it is sufficiently complete for this tool's complexity.

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 input schema only defines a string parameter with no enum or description, yielding 0% schema coverage. The description fully compensates by enumerating the valid values ('rule', 'global', 'direct') and describing the behavior of each, adding critical meaning that the schema lacks.

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 action ('Switch operating mode') and the resource (operating mode), explicitly listing the three possible modes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like proxy_test or provider_list, which serve different purposes.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites. It merely describes what the tool does without contextualizing its use relative to sibling tools.

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