ecamm_set_source_mode

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens to an in-progress video or camera when the mode changes, whether switching during a live recording is safe, or whether prior state is restored.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler, and the resource plus its options are front-loaded. It is terse to the point that the fragment omits any context about effect, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers what the parameter accepts, which is the minimum needed to call it. It is not complete enough to predict consequences of the switch, which matters for a non-read-only tool that changes live production state.

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 0%, and the only parameter is an enum with cryptic values ('cam', 'screen', 'video'). The description glosses each value in plain language (camera, screen share, video playback), which is the precise value the schema is missing. Minor gap: it does not clarify whether 'video' selects an already-loaded file or just the mode.

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 states a specific verb ('Switch') and resource ('source mode') and enumerates the three possible modes, so the operation is unambiguous. It stops short of distinguishing this from nearby siblings such as ecamm_set_camera or ecamm_play_video, which plausibly overlap with two of the listed modes.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text whether switching to 'video' requires ecamm_play_video first, or how this relates to ecamm_set_camera, so the choice among overlapping siblings is left to inference.

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