set_kid_mode

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 but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are needed, whether changes are reversible, what side effects occur, or what the response looks like. For a tool that presumably changes user settings, this lack of behavioral information is a critical gap.

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 maximally concise at just three words. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While it's under-specified in terms of content, it's perfectly efficient in terms of word economy and structure.

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 appears to be a mutation tool (changing kid mode status) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what kid mode is, what it affects, who can use this tool, what the response contains, or any error conditions. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and effects.

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 description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'value' documented as 'Enable or disable kid mode'. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description neither enhances nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 'Set kid mode status' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'set_kid_mode'. It specifies the verb 'set' and resource 'kid mode status', but doesn't explain what kid mode is, what it affects, or what setting it actually does. It's slightly better than just 'Set kid mode' but still lacks meaningful differentiation from what the name already conveys.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when it's appropriate to enable/disable kid mode, what permissions are required, or how it relates to the sibling tool 'get_kid_mode'. The agent receives zero contextual guidance about appropriate usage scenarios.

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