switch_modes

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, suggesting a non-destructive operation, which aligns with 'Activate' implying a state change but not data mutation. The description adds minimal context by specifying example modes ('editing', 'interactive'), but it doesn't detail effects, permissions, or rate limits, leaving behavioral traits under-specified.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes specific examples, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse quickly.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, annotations covering read-only status, and an output schema (which should handle return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on mode semantics and usage context, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full role.

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 schema provides no param details. The description mentions 'modes like ['editing', 'interactive']', adding some meaning by giving examples, but it doesn't explain what modes are, their allowed values, or how the array is processed, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 the action ('Activate') and resource ('modes'), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'modes' are and how they function, and it doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'activate_project' or 'edit_memory', which might involve similar activation concepts.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, such as whether it's for system states or user interactions, making it unclear how it fits with sibling tools like 'initial_instructions' or 'onboarding'.

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