swm_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It does state that the operation is a write and requires confirmation, which is some disclosure. However, it doesn't explain what confirmation entails, what parameters are needed for confirmation (e.g., confirm_token, confirmation_id), or what the side effects of the write are. The description is too sparse to give an agent confidence in how the tool behaves.

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 brief, consisting of a single short phrase. While it avoids unnecessary words, it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. The structure provides no breakdown of the operation or parameters, so it fails to give useful information in a compact form.

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 that this is a write operation requiring confirmation, with four parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose, the confirmation workflow, the meaning of each parameter, or what the return value will be. An agent has almost no information to correctly execute this tool.

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?

The schema has four parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what 'param' (the required one) represents, nor what user_code, confirm_token, or confirmation_id mean. Without any information about parameter semantics, an agent cannot correctly construct a request.

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 names 'Switch log' and indicates a write operation with confirmation, but it does not clearly state what the tool does—whether it writes an entry to a switch log, retrieves a log, or something else. The verb 'Switch' is ambiguous; it could be an adjective or a verb. This makes it hard for an agent to distinguish from the many sibling tools like swm_show or swm_get.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions 'requires confirmation' but does not explain the context of use, the conditions under which this tool is preferred over other log-related tools, or any exclusions. An agent has no idea when to invoke this tool.

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