set_update_mode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the key behavioral fact: 'manual' suppresses re-cooking on every parameter change, which is a global side effect an agent must know. It still omits persistence (does the mode survive scene changes?) and error behavior, so it is not exhaustive.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence and the practical workflow hint follows immediately. The 'Args: ctx: MCP context' line is boilerplate that adds no value, a minor deduction.

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 and no annotations, the description covers purpose, valid values, read-vs-write semantics, and the practical consequence of each mode. Only the read return shape is left implicit, which is a small gap.

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 schema only declares an unconstrained string/null, so the description must supply the semantics. It does exactly that by enumerating the three valid values ('auto', 'on_mouse_up', 'manual') and defining the omission case as a read.

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 and resource ('Set Houdini's cook update mode') and explicitly covers the dual read/write nature ('or read it when called with no mode'). No sibling tool governs update mode, so the definition needs no further disambiguation to be actionable.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance tied to a real workflow: set 'manual' before a long build to stop re-cooking, then 'auto' afterwards. There is no alternative tool to name, so the absence of an explicit alternative is not a real gap.

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