Set Afocal Mode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does convey that this is a reversible boolean toggle rather than a destructive or accumulating operation, which is meaningful for an agent. It says nothing about whether a system must be loaded first, whether the change persists to file, or what happens on failure.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the action and the target state. Nothing extraneous and nothing buried.

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 boolean setter with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is roughly adequate. Its real gap is behavioral: it does not say that a system/file context is required or that the setting is a persistent system property rather than a transient flag.

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 100% — the single boolean parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'Whether afocal mode is enabled'. The description adds no format, default, or side-effect detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb pair ('enable or disable') and resource ('sequential afocal mode'), so the agent knows exactly what state is being toggled. It does not explicitly name get_afocal_mode as its counterpart, but the read/write pairing is self-evident from the naming.

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 word 'sequential' scopes the tool to sequential-mode systems as opposed to the many non-sequential (nsc_) siblings, which is a useful implicit boundary. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite (e.g. a loaded system), or when-not guidance.

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