safety_set_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 mentions that the tool 'Returns the current mode after setting,' which adds some context about the return behavior. However, it lacks critical details such as permissions required, whether the change is reversible, side effects, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: three short sentences with zero waste. The first states the purpose, the second defines parameter values, and the third describes the return behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation with 1 parameter), no annotations, and an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameter values, and return behavior, but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details like permissions or side effects, and deeper parameter semantics. The output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but gaps remain.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: 'Accepts: "read-only", "write", or "admin".' This specifies the allowed values for the 'mode' parameter, which is not covered in the schema. However, it doesn't explain the meaning or implications of each mode value, leaving some ambiguity.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Switch the safety mode.' This is a specific verb ('Switch') and resource ('safety mode'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'safety_get_mode' (which presumably reads rather than sets the mode). The purpose is unambiguous but lacks sibling comparison.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling 'safety_get_mode' for reading the mode, nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for setting the safety mode. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and purpose.

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