Switch editor mode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a useful behavioral fact: certain tools are gated behind paint/animate modes on some formats. However, it says nothing about side effects of switching (e.g. whether current selections or unsaved state are affected) or mode availability per format.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its valid values, then the practical rationale. No filler.

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 single-required-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, allowed values, and why the tool matters. Mild gaps remain around format-specific availability and the effect of switching away from a mode, but nothing critical for invocation is missing.

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% and the schema declares only 'mode: string' with no enum, so the description compensates well by listing the five permitted values. It could go further by noting what happens on an invalid mode, but the enum enumeration is the key missing piece and it is supplied.

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+resource ('Switch Blockbench mode') and enumerates the five valid targets (edit, paint, animate, display, pose). An agent can immediately distinguish this state-setting tool from the many creation/edit siblings.

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 second sentence gives real context for when mode matters ('Paint/animate are needed for texture and animation tools on some formats'), effectively telling the agent to switch modes before using bb_create_texture/bb_paint_pixels or animation tools. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives.

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