set_update_mode

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool has two distinct behaviors depending on whether the argument is supplied, which is more than the schema reveals. However, it says nothing about valid mode values, what happens on an invalid mode, whether the setting is global/persistent, or what the read path returns.

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 short sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the read fallback attached. No filler, no redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, this is close to sufficient, but the read path's return value and the accepted mode values are unstated. An agent can form the call but cannot pick a correct mode value from the definition alone.

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% for the single optional parameter, so the description must compensate. It does explain the null/default case ("no mode" means read), which is the most valuable semantic. It never names the accepted mode strings, leaving the parameter's domain entirely undefined.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Set Houdini's cook update mode") plus the dual read behavior, which is enough to tell it apart from sibling setters like set_frame or set_playback_range. It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives an explicit condition for each usage path: pass a mode to set, call with no mode to read. That resolves the main ambiguity an agent would face. It offers no guidance about when this tool is preferable to other state-changing tools or any preconditions (e.g., must a scene be open).

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