swm_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the operation is a write and requires confirmation, which is useful, but it does not explain what the confirmation flow is, what side effects occur, what gets modified, or what the response looks like. The 'requires confirmation' hint is a positive signal, but the lack of detail on the write behavior leaves significant ambiguity.

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, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The phrase 'Switch detail operation' is vague and does not earn its place; the only concrete information is the parenthetical about write and confirmation. It is not bloated, but it is not well-structured for decision-making.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool without knowing what 'param' should contain, how the confirmation flow works, or what the write operation affects. The presence of many swm_* siblings further increases the need for disambiguation, which is entirely absent.

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 provides no explanation of the parameters. The schema shows 'param' (required), 'user_code', 'confirm_token', and 'confirmation_id', but the description does not clarify what 'param' represents, how confirmation tokens are obtained, or how the parameters relate to the operation. With zero coverage and no compensation, the agent has no semantic grounding for the parameters.

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 'Switch detail operation (write — requires confirmation)' uses a vague verb 'operation' and does not specify what resource or action is being performed. It is not a tautology, but it fails to distinguish itself from the many swm_* siblings (swm_show, swm_get, swm_post, swm_group, etc.) and leaves the agent guessing what 'detail' means.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. The description only notes that it is a write operation requiring confirmation, but it does not explain what scenario calls for swm_detail versus swm_get, swm_show, or swm_post. The agent cannot determine the appropriate context from the description alone.

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