switch_mode

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

Annotations already declare it non-read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the description's job is to add scope and side effects, which it does: the change is server-wide and affects all calls to the process, and the tool surface must be re-listed afterward. It does not say whether the setting persists across restarts or whether it requires elevated permission, which are the remaining unknowns for a process-wide mutation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by side effect and restriction. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers scope, blast radius, follow-up and deployment restriction. The only substantive omission is the semantic difference between the two tiers and persistence 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 description coverage is 0%, but the single parameter is a self-documenting two-value enum, and the description echoes both values. However, it never explains what 'core' versus 'extended' actually enables, so the agent cannot reason about the consequence of its choice beyond the label.

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 names a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('local server-wide analysis tier') and enumerates the two valid states (core, extended), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not need sibling differentiation because none of the listed siblings (list_files, inspect_file, export_data, etc.) overlap with mode switching.

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 states the applicable context ('local server-wide') and an explicit exclusion ('Disabled in central deployments'), plus a follow-up instruction to re-list tools. What is missing is any guidance on when an agent should prefer extended over core, which is the real decision the caller faces.

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