increase_brightness

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

The annotations already mark this as a non-readOnly but non-destructive mutation, and the description reinforces the relative-increment semantics and supplies the default step of 5. It does not say what happens at maximum brightness (clamping vs error), whether the change is per-monitor or global, or whether it is reversible via decrease_brightness.

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?

One short sentence with the action, unit, and default all present, and no redundant or trailing clauses. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-optional-parameter, no-output-schema utility with annotations covering safety, this is close to sufficient. The only meaningful gap is boundary behavior at 0% and 100% brightness, which an agent would need to know before chaining calls.

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 single 'step' parameter is fully documented there, including the default. The description only restates '(default 5)' and adds no units, ranges, or bounds beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Increase screen brightness') with the unit of change ('by N percent'), which is enough to distinguish it from set_brightness (absolute) and decrease_brightness. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the relative-vs-absolute distinction from the word 'increase'.

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?

Because the operation is relative, it is implied that this is the right tool when the user wants a nudge up rather than an absolute level, but the description never says when to use it instead of set_brightness or get_brightness. There are no exclusions or prerequisite notes.

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