adb_airplane_mode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'toggle on/off' without detailing side effects (e.g., disconnecting all radios, possible delays) or required permissions. This is insufficient for a mutation operation.

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?

Two sentences with no extraneous text. The first sentence states the action, the second provides a use case. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a practical use case. It could mention potential impact on ongoing operations, but overall it is sufficiently complete for this complexity level.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters adequately described. The description adds no new information beyond the schema; 'toggle' aligns with the boolean parameter but doesn't clarify that it's a set action, not a true toggle.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'toggle' and the resource 'airplane mode', making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also provides a specific use case (resetting cellular registration during radio testing), which distinguishes it from siblings like `adb_airplane_cycle`.

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 gives a concrete use case (radio testing) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like `adb_airplane_cycle`. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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