swm_maintain

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a write operation requiring confirmation, which is useful, but it gives no detail about what changes occur, what is confirmed, whether the operation is destructive, or what side effects may follow.

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 compact but under-specified; it reads more like a label than a functional description. The little content it has is front-loaded, but it does not earn its place by adding actionable detail.

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 tool with four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter guidance, the description is far too minimal. An agent cannot reliably determine how to construct a valid call or what outcome to expect.

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 does not explain any of the four parameters. It does not define what 'param' should contain, how user_code relates to confirmation, or how confirm_token and confirmation_id are generated or used.

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 maintenance (write — requires confirmation)' is essentially a restatement of the tool name swm_maintain. It signals that the operation is a write that requires confirmation, but it does not specify what maintenance action is performed, what resource is affected, or how it differs from the many sibling swm_* tools.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as swm_post, swm_enable, swm_disable, or swm_get. It does not state prerequisites, expected context, or how confirmation should be obtained.

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