opencode_mode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'gets or sets' which implies both read and write behavior, but doesn't disclose whether toggling 'on' has side effects, whether it affects other tools, whether it requires auth, or how delegation affects subsequent operations. The dual get/set behavior is the only transparency offered, and that's minimal.

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?

One sentence, zero waste. Every word earns its place: 'Gets or sets' defines the action semantics, 'delegation toggle' defines the resource, and the on/off values are specified. No redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a get/set mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. For a tool that can both read state and change behavior, the description should explain what delegation means in this context, what happens when toggled on/off, and whether there's a default state. With zero annotations and zero output schema, the description is underspecified for the operational complexity hidden behind such a simple interface.

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 0%, but there's only 1 parameter with an enum, so the schema itself fully enumerates valid values ('on'|'off'). The description mentions the toggle values ('on' | 'off') which mirrors the enum. Since the schema fully self-documents the only parameter via the enum, the description adds minimal but non-zero context by explaining these represent delegation states. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the single, enum-constrained parameter.

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 verb 'gets or sets' with resource 'delegation toggle' and the on/off values. It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like opencode_set_model (delegation vs model are distinct enough). Purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With 27 sibling tools including similar opencode_* operations, there's no indication of when delegation toggling is appropriate, whether there are prerequisites (e.g., server running), or consequences of toggling delegation. Usage context is entirely absent.

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