set_operation_mode

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

The description outlines the return structure ('success status and current mode') and mentions a transition_time parameter. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects such as error handling, side effects (e.g., what happens to other systems), authentication requirements, or behaviour on timeout. With no annotations, a higher bar is expected.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a brief intro, a list of modes, and clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the organization makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple tool with only two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: modes, parameters, and return structure. It could be more complete by clarifying transition behavior (e.g., what happens if the transition fails or times out), but overall it provides sufficient context for safe use.

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 already has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description repeats this information in the 'Args' section but does not add significant new meaning beyond stating the modes. The default for transition_time is also in the schema. Thus, the description adds marginal value.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Change vehicle operation mode.' It lists all possible modes (stop, autonomous, local, remote), making the resource and action specific. The tool is distinct from sibling tools, which mostly monitor or control other aspects of the vehicle.

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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool (to change operation mode), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternative tools. No exclusions or context-dependent advice is given, which limits its helpfulness for an AI agent deciding between tools.

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