exit_demo_mode

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context beyond annotations: stateless, no state change, verbose response, and the fact that the server cannot actually unset the demo mode. This extra detail earns a 4.

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 well-organized with clear sections for purpose, behavioral notes, and agent instructions. While it is somewhat lengthy, every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the response will contain (tailored decision tree, deferral messages, no-op when outside demo mode). It also covers edge cases like missing inputs. The tool's complexity is medium, and the description fully addresses it.

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 coverage is 100%, so descriptions are already clear. The tool description adds usage guidance for each parameter (e.g., 'pass false to get deferral message'), which helps the agent decide values. This goes beyond bare schema definitions.

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 explicitly states the tool produces a step-by-step guide for exiting demo mode and clarifies that it cannot actually change the state. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on guidance rather than direct state changes, and uses specific verbs like 'build' and 'produces'.

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 explicit when-to-use criteria (only after user confirmation of intent), lists prerequisite questions to ask, and warns against probing or calling when outside demo mode. It also tells the agent to defer if the user lacks a ledger device.

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