omni_mapdev_mode

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains side effects of PLAY mode (command blocks become invisible/unopenable/unbreakable/untargetable while logic continues), persistence, race-free scheduling, instant rebuild, and the critical caution that hiding never disables logic.

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 longer than average but every sentence carries operational value, and the most important behavior is front-loaded. The final sentence about the unified kernel is minor context but not redundant. It is structured well with mode definitions and consequences.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers invocation, mode semantics, aliasing, persistence, concurrency behavior, post-switch verification, and relationship to other interfaces. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly and interpret its expected behavior.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining the real-world effect of each mode value, the preview alias, and the no-args query behavior. The 'by' parameter is adequately covered by the schema.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a dual-mode switch for the running map, supports both switching and querying, and precisely defines DEV vs PLAY behavior. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on mode state and switching semantics rather than status or map file operations.

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 explicitly states that calling with no arguments queries the current mode, and it describes what each mode value does and when to verify after switching. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives to avoid, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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