Set mode ceiling

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the refusal behavior for over-ceiling tasks, which is useful, but leaves the step-up authentication/error behavior and audit recording to the schema rather than surfacing it itself.

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?

Two tight sentences with no waste, and the core effect (setting the ceiling) is front-loaded before the consequence clause. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given a rich 100%-covered schema and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description carries enough to call the tool correctly. It could note who is authorized or the audit implications, but the essentials are present.

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%, including enum values and the step-up auth error code, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.

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 ('Set') and a well-defined resource ('highest operating mode tasks in this workspace may request'), and the refusal consequence clarifies scope. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from control siblings like pause/resume/cancel, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this when you want to constrain the maximum mode, and that over-ceiling tasks are refused. There is no when-to-use vs. alternative guidance (e.g., relative to control.pause or workspace.set_profiles) and no stated prerequisites.

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