m8811_set_remote_sense

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnly=false) and non-idempotent/non-destructive behavior; the description adds valuable context: the output must be off, and the manual documents no state query, so there is no way to read back the setting. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence that starts with the verb, states the resource, includes the essential precondition, and adds a caveat. Every word contributes; no redundancy or filler.

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 one-boolean setter, the description covers the core action, the required output-off state, and the absence of a read-back query. It omits behavior if the output is on, but the explicit precondition makes this a minor 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?

The only parameter, 'enabled', has a self-explanatory name and the description clarifies that it controls remote sense, but the description does not explicitly state the true/false mapping or any default value. With 0% schema description coverage, this is minimally adequate.

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 ('Set') and resource ('remote sense') with a clear precondition ('while output is off'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling setters like m8811_set_panel_control and m8811_set_output by naming the exact setting being changed.

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 clearly states when the tool is valid ('while output is off') and notes the lack of a state-query command, which implies verification limits. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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