set_safety_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 does not state whether this is a write/mutation operation, whether it requires specific permissions, whether changes take effect immediately, or whether there's any side effect on connected services (e.g., OBS). 'Set' implies mutation but the consequences are undisclosed.

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 verb and resource, and the enum values provide immediate clarity. Could arguably be too terse, but there's no redundancy or filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is underspecified. It doesn't explain what each safety mode does, what return value or confirmation is produced, whether it affects OBS state, or how it interacts with debug/get_debug_config siblings. Given zero annotation coverage, the description should carry more behavioral detail.

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%, and the enum values are documented. The description restates the enum options (strict, normal, debug) which adds marginal value, but it doesn't clarify what each mode means behaviorally or what effect each has. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema 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 verb 'set' and the resource 'safety mode' clearly. It enumerates the valid mode values (strict, normal, debug), which helps an agent understand the operation. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings well — though none of the sibling names are obviously related to safety mode, so the purpose is adequately clear.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when to adjust safety mode, or what scenarios warrant changing it. No when-not-to-use instructions or prerequisites are provided. For a configuration tool, context on why/when to change safety mode would be valuable.

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