bw_set_adso_planning_mode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the read-before/read-after behavior, that both modes are returned, and that the operation is not a modeling change (no lock, no transport, no activation) — valuable side-effect disclosure for a mutation tool. It does not mention authorization requirements or what happens if the aDSO is not planning-enabled.

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?

Four compact sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the action and the mode distinction, followed by return behavior and then the negative scope claim. Every sentence carries distinct 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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly states that the mode is read before and after and both are returned. Precondition (planning-enabled aDSO) is implied and side effects are covered, but failure/authorization behavior is not addressed, leaving a small gap for a mutation tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining the functional consequence of each enum value (planning writes vs DTP loads) and by mapping 'loading' to the cockpit label 'Staging'. That adds real decision semantics the schema alone does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb ('Switch'), a specific resource ('planning-enabled aDSO'), and the exact two states it toggles between. It is clearly distinguishable from modeling siblings like bw_update_adso or bw_activate, and the parenthetical 'Staging' alias removes ambiguity with BW cockpit terminology.

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?

Explains what each mode enables ('input-ready queries and planning functions write to the aDSO' vs 'DTPs load it'), which tells an agent which value to pick and why. It also implicitly routes away from transport/activation tools ('no lock, no transport, no activation'), but never names an alternative sibling explicitly or states a when-not condition.

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