set_yolo_mode

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two most important traits: the tool suppresses a safety prompt and the setting is 'persisted' rather than session-scoped. It omits blast radius (does it affect other sessions or processes?), required permissions, and whether the change is reversible or auditable, which matters greatly for a safety-bypass toggle.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action, parenthetically defines the term, and ends with scope and persistence. No filler, and the parenthetical definition is genuinely load-bearing rather than redundant.

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 two-parameter configuration toggle with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what changes and that it persists, but leaves open the operational questions an agent needs: which sibling tool's behavior is affected, whether confirmation is returned, and whether permissions or a restart are required.

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%, so the schema gives only bare 'boolean' and 'string' titles. The description compensates partially: 'enable/disable' explains the boolean's polarity and 'for one database' clarifies that the string targets a single named database rather than a global or wildcard setting. It adds no format, identifier, or default guidance beyond that.

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 pair (enable/disable) and a named resource (yolo mode) and immediately glosses the jargon as 'skip the write-consent prompt', so an agent knows exactly what changes. It scopes the effect to 'one database' and notes persistence, which separates it from the query-execution siblings, but it never names a sibling tool outright.

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 gloss 'skip the write-consent prompt' implies the usage context (repeated write operations via execute_write_query), but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no pointer to alternatives such as confirming per call. An agent must infer that this is a convenience toggle for trusted bulk-write sessions.

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