polynodes_isomorph_mod_switch

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation/safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the state-toggle semantics and the fact that a JSON confirmation is returned, but discloses nothing about persistence across sessions, whether turning off resets depth, or OSC-side effects.

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?

Front-loads the action in one line and uses labeled Args/Returns sections, so it is easy to scan with no filler. The only minor cost is that the Args and Returns text duplicates information already in the schema and output schema.

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 two-parameter toggle with an output schema handling return values and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient to invoke correctly. It falls short only on module-state prerequisites, which a slightly richer description could address.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema itself; the Args block merely restates param values and the 0.0/1.0 states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds no format or behavioral nuance beyond the structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb ('Turn on/off') and a specific resource ('isomorphic modulation target') with the three accepted targets named. It is clear enough to separate from sibling toggles like polynodes_isomorph_switch or polynodes_granular_switch, but it does not explicitly distinguish 'mod' switch from the plain isomorph switch in the sibling list.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. The description never states the prerequisite (an isomorphic module already active) nor points to related siblings such as polynodes_isomorph_switch or polynodes_isomorph_mod_depth. Usage is only inferable from the name and args.

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