desktop_set_value

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by warning that displayed formatting and application commit may differ, requiring verification and explicit commit only when intended. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond a generic 'set' operation.

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 two dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then delivers an essential caveat about verification and commit behavior, earning its length.

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 simple two-parameter setter with no output schema, the description covers the main prerequisite (inspect/read both) and the key risk (commit/display mismatch). It is slightly sparse on return/outcome details, but generally complete for invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It vaguely implies the value is numeric and should fall within an inspected range, but it does not explain how to obtain element_id or specify value constraints beyond that. The two parameters remain under-documented.

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 action and target: 'Set a numeric control...' and adds verification of the accessibility value. This differentiates it from sibling setters like desktop_set_checked and desktop_set_expanded by limiting scope to numeric controls, although it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 provides clear usage context: use it to set numeric controls within an inspected range and verify the accessible value. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, leaving selection guidance somewhat implicit.

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