computer.work_mode.start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the two-step confirmation gate and that confirm=true requires prior preview, which is useful. However, it does not explain side effects of starting, failure modes, or what constitutes the 'full list'.

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 compact Chinese sentences, the first stating the purpose and the second giving the key usage instruction. Perfectly front-loaded with 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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description leaves gaps about how to discover available profiles, what the 'full list' contains, and preconditions for starting the work mode. Adequate for a simple confirmation-gated tool, but not complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the confirm parameter's role (preview vs start) and implies profile is the work mode identifier, but it does not define profile values, format, or how it relates to the 'full list'. Partial compensation only.

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 states the tool 'previews or starts a fixed work mode' with a specific verb+resource pairing. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like system status or app open by describing the preview/start action on work mode.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: first call with confirm=false, then pass true only after the user confirms the full list. This is clear context on how to use the tool, though it does not mention alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.

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