tc_set_mode

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/idempotency profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: which transitions are capped and that downgrades always succeed. It does not state who is authorized to escalate or what the max_mode default is, but the added policy context is substantive.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the accepted values are front-loaded ahead of the escalation constraint. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the parameter domain plus the enforcement rule. What remains thin is authorization/identity context for a safety-mode mutation, but overall it is sufficient to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 0% and the sole parameter 'mode' has no enum or description, so the string 'readonly | guarded | full' in the description is the only source of accepted values. The description fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 and resource ('Switch safety mode') and enumerates the exact modes accepted, which distinguishes it from the read-only sibling tc_safety_status. An agent can identify the tool's job without opening the schema.

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?

The description supplies an operational rule (escalation capped by TCMCP_MAX_MODE, lowering always allowed) but never says when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as tc_safety_status for inspection or tc_request_confirmation for gated changes. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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