Set Operation Mode

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it changes state and is safe to reapply. The description adds that modes are switched but does not elaborate on side effects like whether ongoing operations are affected or if mode changes persist.

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 very concise: a single introductory sentence followed by a bullet list of three modes. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 a single parameter with full enum documentation and an existing output schema (not shown but present), the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, the available modes, and their use cases. No further information is needed for correct invocation.

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 already documents the mode parameter with enum values and a clear description. The tool description merely repeats the enum values without adding extra semantic detail, so it does not significantly enhance schema coverage.

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 switches between operation modes, listing three specific modes. It distinguishes itself from siblings like compare_modes and recommend_routing by focusing on changing the mode, not comparing or routing.

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 context for when each mode is appropriate (e.g., 'maximum token savings' for execution, 'debugging/comparison' for passthrough, 'automatic selection' for hybrid). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives.

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