kvm_hid_mode

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 a hardware restriction ('GLKVM/PiKVM only') and the relative-vs-absolute behavioral difference of the modes. But it is silent on side effects of switching — whether the mode persists across reboots, whether the mouse re-enumerates, or whether the switch disrupts an active connection.

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 and front-loaded: the action verb comes first, followed by the concise mode enumeration and the platform constraint. The trailing '(input tier)' tag is cryptic and adds little for an agent, but it is minor noise in an otherwise tight definition.

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 single-parameter, enum-driven tool, the description covers purpose, mode semantics, and a platform gate. Yet with no output schema and no annotations, it omits practical details an agent would want: what the tool returns on success/failure, whether the switch takes effect immediately, and whether existing mouse input is disrupted. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds real semantic value by glossing usb as 'absolute', usb_rel as 'relative' with a Mac Recovery tip, which goes beyond the raw enum in the schema. However, usb_hybrid is left unexplained, so the compensation is incomplete and prevents a 5.

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 states a specific verb ('Switch') and a clear resource ('the mouse gadget'), then enumerates the three valid modes with one-line definitions. This distinguishes it from siblings like kvm_mouse (which presumably handles pointer movement) by making clear it changes the HID protocol mode, not sends input events.

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 Mac Recovery hint for usb_rel provides mode-selection context, and 'GLKVM/PiKVM only' sets a platform precondition. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives like kvm_mouse or kvm_select_device, and gives no exclusion conditions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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