Switch Modes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds some context by specifying it 'activates' modes, but doesn't elaborate on what activation entails, whether it's persistent, or if there are side effects. It provides minimal behavioral insight beyond what annotations already cover.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence with two helpful examples. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose immediately stated. No wasted verbiage or redundant information.

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 annotations covering safety, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a mode-switching operation, it should ideally explain what 'activation' means, whether modes are exclusive or combinable, and what the expected outcome is, despite the output schema existing.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single 'modes' parameter. The description adds marginal value by providing example mode arrays (['editing', 'interactive'] and ['planning', 'one-shot']), which helps illustrate valid inputs but doesn't explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb ('activates') and resource ('desired modes'), and provides concrete examples of mode combinations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'activate_project' or 'get_current_config' that might also involve mode management.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when this should be called versus other configuration tools, or what happens if modes conflict. The examples suggest usage but don't provide explicit decision criteria.

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