set_mode

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

The description discloses a concrete behavioral constraint: force_new_intersection is rejected for certain modes. Annotations already cover idempotency and non-read-only, so the description adds value by explaining the parameter rejection, though it doesn't describe other side effects of switching modes.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds a critical constraint. No filler, 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?

For a mode-switching tool with a clear schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and the one non-obvious parameter constraint. It doesn't need to explain return values due to the output schema.

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 0%, but the description adds significant meaning to force_new_intersection by specifying valid modes and rejection behavior. The mode parameter is self-explanatory via its enum, so the description effectively compensates for the lack of coverage on the only ambiguous parameter.

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 uses a specific verb 'Switch' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the PLAXIS Input working mode,' which distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like set_property or calculate. It also hints at scope with the mode restriction.

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 explicitly notes that force_new_intersection is only meaningful for mesh, water, or stages modes and is rejected for soil or structures, providing a clear conditional guideline. However, it does not discuss alternatives or when to use this tool versus other setter tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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