set_mode

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it excels: it reveals the upper-limit ceiling (max_mode), the rule that lowering the mode does not grant later escalation, and concrete scenarios for ADMIN- versus NORMAL-started servers. This is exactly the non-obvious operational constraint an agent must know before calling the tool.

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 purpose and valid values are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds the critical ceiling constraint, so the structure is logical. Each sentence earns its place, though the worked example scenarios are somewhat redundant with the general rule just stated and could be slightly tighter.

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 one-parameter setter whose only real nuance is the max_mode ceiling, the description covers the essential behavior thoroughly, and an output schema exists to define return values. Minor gaps remain: the error behavior when attempting to exceed max_mode and whether the mode change persists are not addressed, but neither is critical given the constraints already described.

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%: the schema only declares a required string 'mode' with no enum, allowed values, or description. The description fully compensates by listing the three valid string values and explaining their hierarchical relationship (safe < normal < admin) and their interaction with the max_mode ceiling.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: changing the server's permission mode at runtime, and enumerates the exact allowed values ('safe', 'normal', 'admin'). This states the tool's function precisely and clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, none of which manage server permission modes.

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 explains when the tool is applicable and when it cannot achieve the goal: it can never exceed the startup max_mode, so on a NORMAL-started server it can never reach admin, and the only path upward is the ANDROID_CONTROL_MODE=admin environment variable plus restart. This is clear contextual guidance, though it is not explicitly framed as tool-vs-alternative selection, which keeps it from a 5.

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