standalone_mode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait — that the mode is validated against the IP's *_Modes.xml list — but says nothing about required project state, permissions, idempotency, side effects on existing configuration, failure behavior, or return values for what is clearly a mutation tool.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a specific verb and zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight writing.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters needs more: preconditions (open project? valid IP?), effect of the change, and how it relates to mode_set and standalone_validate are all absent. The single validation clause does not fill the 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 100%, so the schema already documents ip, mode, and project_id. The description adds only an implicit relationship between ip and mode (mode names are drawn from that IP's mode list), with no further syntax or format guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Enable a peripheral/middleware mode', with the extra detail of validation against the IP's mode list in db/mcu/IP/*_Modes.xml. However, it gives no differentiation from nearby siblings such as mode_set, mode_check, or standalone_validate, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of these performs this enabling.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named despite the crowded sibling set (mode_set, mode_check, standalone_param, standalone_validate). The only implied precondition is that the IP must expose a mode list, which falls short of routing guidance.

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