switch_mode

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

Annotations already mark the tool as idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds crucial behavioral context: it reveals that the tool/resource list refreshes via 'list_changed' after the call and clarifies what tools/resources are available in each mode. No contradictions with annotations.

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 paragraph with no wasted sentences, but it is slightly verbose. It front-loads the core action and then lists modes and their contents efficiently. Minor room for tightening, but overall strong.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter schema, no output schema, and informative annotations, the description fully covers the tool's behavior: what it does, the effect of each mode, and a side effect (list refresh). It leaves no obvious gaps.

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 100% and the description expands on each enum value beyond the schema's single-word labels. For example, it explains that 'configure' includes entry CRUD and design tools, while 'frontend' adds the inistate://frontend-guide resource. This adds meaningful clarity.

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 uses the specific verb phrase 'Switch tool surface' and lists the three modes (configure, runtime, frontend) with their distinct feature sets. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools, which are all separate resource or action tools.

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 explains what each mode enables and explicitly advises using 'frontend' when the user wants a custom UI. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the mode descriptions provide enough context to select appropriately.

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