set_monitor_scale

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, but the description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of whether scaling takes effect live, whether it survives reload/logout, how invalid values or unsupported scales are handled, or what the caller sees on success/failure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; it is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than exemplary compactness.

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 low-complexity two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the definition covers the essential purpose. Missing are the behavioral details an agent would want before mutating display settings (immediacy, persistence, validation), which is a clear but modest gap.

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% and both parameters are documented, including example scale values (1, 1.25, 1.5, 2) and the fact that monitor is a name. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change a monitor's scaling factor'), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from the sibling monitor tools (enable/disable/mirror/dpms). It doesn't need to name an alternative because no sibling overlaps this function.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus other monitor tools, no prerequisites (does the monitor need to be enabled first?), and no note about whether the change applies immediately or persists. The agent must infer all usage context.

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