set_message_box_mode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that 0x00020000 suppresses all dialogs, but it does not describe side effects, persistence, how to restore normal behavior, or whether the mode flags are additive. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 short, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence serves a purpose. The example value is high-value, and the Args line is minimal without being bloated.

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 simple one-parameter setter, this is nearly complete: the agent knows the action, the parameter type, and at least one important flag value. The main omission is lack of guidance on reading the current mode via get_message_box_mode and on default behavior, but the low complexity keeps this from being a major deficiency.

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 only defines mode as an integer, so the description adds real meaning by calling it 'Message box mode flags' and by providing the concrete 0x00020000 value with its effect. This meaningfully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, even though it does not enumerate the full set of valid flags.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and a clear resource ('message box display mode'), so an agent can tell this is the write counterpart to get_message_box_mode. It is not a tautology and avoids ambiguity, though it does not explicitly name the sibling for contrast.

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 implies when to use it — when the caller wants to change the message box display mode — and gives a concrete example value (0x00020000 to suppress dialogs). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as get_message_box_mode for reading the current mode.

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