Trigger transition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core effect ('preview becomes program') but does not disclose the role of the 'confirm' parameter, whether the transition respects current transition settings, or what happens if studio mode is inactive. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation-like action.

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 that directly states the action and outcome. There is no wasted text; every word contributes essential information.

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?

Although the tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description omits critical context: it does not mention that studio mode must be enabled, what 'confirm' does, or how this transition interacts with other transition settings. The description is too thin to support reliable invocation without additional knowledge.

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?

The input schema has one optional boolean 'confirm' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving its purpose and effect completely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 a specific verb 'Execute' with a clear resource 'manual studio-mode transition' and explains the outcome ('preview becomes program'). This distinguishes it from siblings like set_studio_mode (enabling/disabling mode) and set_preview_scene (choosing the preview scene).

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 phrase 'manual studio-mode transition' implies this tool is for manually switching preview to program in studio mode, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like being in studio mode or having a transition configured. Usage guidance is implied but not explicit.

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