toggle_presentation_mode

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

Since annotations are absent, the description must disclose behavioral details. It only states 'toggle or set' without explaining what happens in each case (e.g., the role of the enabled parameter's null vs boolean), whether the change is persistent, or any side effects. The impact on the patcher's UI remains vague.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easily scannable. However, the brevity sacrifices detail that other dimensions require.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no annotations, this description is under-specified. It omits parameter semantics, usage context, and any note about return values (though an output schema exists). The complete behavior of toggling versus setting remains ambiguous.

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%, and the description does not compensate. It mentions 'set' but never clarifies the significance of the enabled parameter (null triggers toggle, true/false sets explicitly), nor does it mention bridge_session_id at all. The semantics must be inferred solely from schema names.

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 identifies the action (toggle or set) and the resource (the attached patcher's presentation mode). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_presentation_rect, which deals with geometry rather than 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description is a standalone statement without context for selecting it among the many view and presentation tools.

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