swop_executor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool solos an executor with blackout on others and explains three modes (swop, swop_on, swop_go). However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or what happens to state, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 concise with a clear one-line summary followed by parameter explanations and return type. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy, though the docstring format could be slightly more streamlined.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and three parameters, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return value. However, it omits prerequisites, error handling, and deeper context for mode selection, which could help an AI agent in real-world use.

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?

Description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema: it explains each parameter (executor_id, page, mode) and explicitly enumerates mode values with their behaviors. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this is crucial and well-handled.

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 states the tool's action: 'Swop an executor (solo with blackout on others) — a live busking control.' It specifies the verb 'swop' and the resource 'executor' with context of soloing and blackout, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like stomp_executor or temp_executor.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stomp_executor or temp_executor. It only describes what it does without clarifying selection criteria or context of use.

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