update_modeRename a cooling mode or replace its saved settings with the currently applied channel configuration so stored and active settings stay aligned.
Rename a mode and/or overwrite its saved settings with the current channel settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | Mode uid or exact name | |
| name | No | New name | |
| save_current_settings | No | Replace the mode's saved settings with what is applied right now |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructiveHint=false and non-read-only, so safety is partly covered. The description's main added value is disclosing that saved settings are replaced (prior saved settings are lost) — useful, but it does not say what happens when no name and no save flag are supplied or what errors are returned.
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?
A single well-formed sentence with the primary action front-loaded and zero filler. It is slightly terse for a two-purpose mutation, but nothing is wasted.
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 3-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers both operations adequately, but leaves open the all-optional-parameters case and failure behavior. Adequate minimum viable rather than complete.
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 all three parameters (mode, name, save_current_settings) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the same semantics at a higher level and adds no format or edge-case detail beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.
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 pair (rename, overwrite) and the resource (mode), plus the exact source of the new settings (current channel settings). An agent can distinguish it from create_mode/duplicate_mode/delete_mode by the mutation described, though siblings like update_profile are not explicitly contrasted.
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 guidance on when to use this versus activate_mode or the other mode/profile tools, and no statement of prerequisites (e.g., that the target mode must already exist, or whether name and save_current_settings can both be omitted). Usage is only implied by the sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.