set_update_mode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the dual read/write behavior, the effect of 'manual' (stops every parameter change from re-cooking), and the recommended reset to 'auto'. It does not mention side effects on existing cooks or whether the mode persists across scenes, but the core behavioral traits are clearly disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action is in the first sentence, the usage rationale follows immediately, and the parameter documentation is minimal but complete. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the parameter values, the read mode, and the recommended usage pattern. The only minor gap is the exact return value when reading the mode, but the description's 'read it' phrasing is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it lists the three valid values ('auto', 'on_mouse_up', 'manual') and explains that omitting the mode reads the current setting. The description adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'mode' property, though it doesn't specify the exact return format when reading.

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 ('Set') and resource ('Houdini's cook update mode'), and also covers the read behavior when called with no mode. It clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like get_cook_status or set_parameter by naming the exact setting it controls.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: use 'manual' before a long build to prevent re-cooking, and set 'auto' back afterwards. It also explains the read mode when mode is omitted. This is actionable usage context that an agent can follow without additional inference.

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