bridge_set_mode

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the meaningful behavior: show mode locks the bridge, enforces reads+allowlist for every TD client, and requires the exact human-supplied 'END SHOW' confirmation before leaving. It also includes an explicit agent-safety directive not to supply that confirmation on its own initiative.

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 critical safety warning is front-loaded before parameters, and each parameter gets a compact, scannable one-line explanation. No filler; the length is justified by five undocumented parameters.

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?

Even without annotations or an output schema, the description covers the mode semantics, all parameter formats, the locking side effects, and the human-confirmation requirement. The response_format and detail options give the agent enough control over the returned shape.

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%, but the description compensates completely: it defines the two mode values, the glob format for allow with concrete examples, the exact confirm string, the detail levels, and the response_format choices.

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 names the exact operation: switch the bridge between SHOW (locked for live performance) and PREP, and defines what SHOW means. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bridge_mode or bridge_open_show, so it falls one step short of a 5.

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?

It gives clear situational context: use SHOW for a live performance lock, return to PREP to unlock, and never exit show mode without the human-typed confirm phrase. It doesn't explicitly route between siblings, but the conditional guidance is strong.

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