set_mode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Switch mode', which is a terse statement of the action itself. It doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., changing the 3D viewport context, potential implications for selection), whether the object_name is required for some modes, or what happens if the mode is invalid. This is a significant gap for a tool that mutates the Blender context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately concise for a clear action, but the brevity leaves out crucial context. As a result, it is not maximally effective despite being clean.

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 2-parameter schema with 0% coverage, no annotations, and a large set of sibling tools that include many mode-specific entrypoints, this description is incomplete. It does not address the optional object_name, the relationship to sibling tools, or any preconditions. The output schema exists but the description alone is insufficient for an agent to reliably choose between set_mode and the specific enter_*_mode alternatives.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It names example values for 'mode' but does not explain the semantics of either parameter, especially 'object_name' (which is optional with a null default). The description adds nothing about what object_name does (e.g., which object's mode is switched) or how the mode parameter is validated.

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 'Switch' and the resource 'mode', and lists representative values (OBJECT, EDIT, SCULPT, POSE, WEIGHT_PAINT). This makes the tool's function clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many sibling enter_*_mode tools (e.g., enter_edit_mode, enter_sculpt_mode), which have more specific scopes. The description implies a generic capability but doesn't explicitly contrast it.

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 generic set_mode versus the specific enter_edit_mode, enter_sculpt_mode, etc. It also doesn't mention the optional object_name parameter or any prerequisites. An agent is left to infer usage from the mode names alone.

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