ads_system_mode

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the runtime restart, that I/O goes down, the ≤20 s wait behavior, the before/after return, and the reached=false failure condition tied to license/configuration errors. These are concrete operational traits an agent needs and none are in the structured fields.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the destructive consequences. Every clause earns its place with no 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?

For a destructive mode-switch tool, the description covers the essential behavior (restart, I/O loss, wait, failure signal), and the output schema handles return values. The main gap is the unexplained confirm_token parameter, which is a meaningful omission for a destructive-class operation.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies the valid 'action' values ('run'/'config'), but the confirm_token parameter is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (Switch) and resource (TwinCAT run/config mode) with the exact values involved, so an agent immediately knows what it does. It does not distinguish itself from the nearby sibling tc_set_mode, which appears to overlap, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implied by the operational context (restarts the runtime, I/O goes down) but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over alternatives such as tc_set_mode or xae_restart_twincat. The destructive framing hints at caution but gives no when-not-to-use exclusion.

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