Enable or disable efficiency mode for a process so it uses idle CPU scheduling and low-priority disk I/O, reducing contention with active workloads.
Turns efficiency mode on or off for a process: it runs only when no one else wants the processor (the idle scheduling class), and its disk I/O likewise.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| on | Yes | On: Windows runs it at low priority on efficient cores and clocks. | |
| pid | Yes | ||
| force | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description usefully explains what the mode actually does at the scheduler and I/O level. It omits failure behavior (nonexistent pid, permission requirements) and never explains the effect of the `force` flag or whether the change survives process restart.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action, with the mechanism as a trailing clarification — no filler. It could be slightly tighter, but nothing is wasted.
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 system-level mutation with three parameters, a third of them undocumented, no output schema, and no stated permission or failure semantics, the description leaves real gaps an agent would need in order to call it correctly and interpret the result.
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 only 33%: `on` is documented in the schema, while `pid` and `force` are bare. The description implies a target process but never clarifies pid semantics or what `force` overrides, leaving the most operationally interesting parameter undocumented in both places.
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+resource ("Turns efficiency mode on or off for a process") and goes further by explaining the mechanism (idle scheduling class, idle disk I/O). It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as set_priority or limit_process, which also throttle a process.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this over set_priority, set_affinity, or limit_process, nor any mention of prerequisites (admin rights, OS support, whether the process must be running). The agent must infer the use case purely from the phrase "efficiency mode".
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.