ACTION_DND_MODE

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the permission prerequisite per action, the exact output keys (dnd_success, dnd_error, dnd_state), the full dnd_state value set including the unknown sentinel, and the ${var} interpolation plus variable-snapshot return convention. It does not state whether a mode change persists across reboots or how failures surface beyond dnd_error, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by permission, output, and interpolation details in a logical order with no filler sentences. It is dense parenthetical prose with a stray doubled period ('。。') that slightly hurts readability, but every clause carries 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 tool with no output schema, the description compensates by documenting the return keys and value domain, and it covers the one real hazard (the permission gate). The only omissions are the generic workflow parameters and post-failure behavior, which are consistent across the ACTION_* family and thus reasonably assumed.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely new meaning by mapping the permission requirement to specific action values (all except get) and by noting that string parameters accept ${var} interpolation — neither is in the schema. The workflow-level params (require, on_error, node_timeout_ms) are left to their schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb pair plus resource: query or switch Do Not Disturb mode. It enumerates the concrete mode values (on/off/priority/alarms) and names the output fields, so an agent can tell exactly what the tool does without opening the schema. No sibling in the list overlaps with DND, so differentiation is moot.

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?

It gives explicit conditional guidance: on/off/priority/alarms require ACCESS_NOTIFICATION_POLICY (or notification-access grant), while get does not. That tells the agent when the call will succeed versus fail. It stops short of naming any alternative tool, but none exists among the siblings, so the gap is minor.

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