swap_mode

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation itself and says nothing about side effects, failure conditions, whether the mode must already exist in the collection, or whether the change persists. For a mutating tool, this is a notable gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It states the verb and resource immediately and communicates the core purpose efficiently.

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 low-complexity tool with only two fully documented parameters, the definition is minimally viable. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it would benefit from clarifying that the mode must be a valid mode on the collection and what the effect of switching modes is on variables.

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%, and the parameter descriptions already explain that 'mode' is the mode name to activate and 'collectionId' is the collection ID. The tool description adds little beyond linking these to the concept of an 'active mode' on a variable collection, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Switch'), a specific resource ('variable collection'), and a specific property ('active mode'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like set_blend_mode or update_variable because it names the variable-collection context explicitly.

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 intended use is implied by the description: use this when you want to change which mode is active on a variable collection. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative should be preferred in related scenarios, such as when creating modes or updating collection settings.

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