swm_db

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two key traits: the operation is a write (mutating) and it requires confirmation. However, it does not explain the confirmation flow, whether the change is reversible, or any side effects, so the disclosure is only partial.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The word 'operation' is filler, and the structure omits essential details about what the tool actually does. A concise description should still convey enough to be usable.

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 write operation with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this one-line description is grossly inadequate. An agent cannot determine what 'param' should contain, how to obtain a confirmation token, whether confirmation is always required, or what the result looks like. Sibling tools like swm_post or swm_get are not referenced to establish any workflow.

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 description adds no parameter meaning. The required 'param' field is left completely undefined, and while 'requires confirmation' hints at confirm_token/confirmation_id, it never maps them to the schema properties or explains user_code. The agent has no way to know what values to provide.

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 says 'Switch database operation' but uses the generic noun 'operation' without a concrete verb like create, update, or delete. It largely restates the tool name (swm_db) and provides no specific resource or action, leaving the actual purpose ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to invoke this tool versus the many swm_* siblings (swm_post, swm_set, swm_maintain, etc.). The parenthetical 'requires confirmation' is a constraint, not a usage condition, and there are no exclusions, alternatives, or context that would help an agent choose this tool.

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