set_brightness

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, non-open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the valid input range, which the schema already carries, and says nothing about what happens on hardware without backlight control or whether the change is persisted.

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 and the constraint front-loaded; nothing redundant or padded.

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-parameter, non-destructive setter with full schema coverage and annotations, the definition is essentially complete — the only real caveat an agent might need, failure on unsupported displays, is the sole gap. No output schema exists, but a brightness setter needs no return 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 single parameter already documents 'Brightness percentage (1-100)'. The description merely repeats that exact range, adding no new meaning such as clamping behavior for out-of-range values.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Set screen brightness') with the value range, so an agent can tell it sets an absolute level rather than adjusting relatively. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives, but the name and verb make the distinction from get_brightness / increase_brightness / decrease_brightness obvious.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'set to a specific percentage' hints at absolute-setting versus the relative increase/decrease siblings, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use is stated and no sibling is named.

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