crosspad_settings_set

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description doesn't contradict annotations. It adds the '[PC sim]' scoping and the write-on-simulator context. There's no pre-write validation, persistence, or effect disclosure beyond what annotations imply, but destructiveHint already covers the key hazard.

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 extremely brief (one clause) and gets straight to the point. While minimal, it's not padded with unnecessary text. The heavy lifting is done in the schema where it belongs. Could arguably add a note about effects, but the length is appropriate for a simple write operation.

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?

With a complete 100% schema coverage, a clear output schema, and precise annotations (destructiveHint), the description is adequate. The tool is simple (just key+value), and all critical behavioral and parameter knowledge is accessible. The '[PC sim]' scope marker adds helpful context. Only minor gap: no note about whether the setting persists or applies immediately.

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 parameter schema is highly detailed (100% coverage) with thorough descriptions including flat vs dotted key formats, discovery hints, boolean encoding rules, and numeric type constraints. The description itself adds little, but the schema carries the full burden well. The schema descriptions for both params are rich and actionable.

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 clearly states it writes a single setting on the running simulator, with a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('setting on the running simulator'). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from crosspad_settings_get, though the verb write vs get is self-evident from names. Clear purpose without tautology.

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 notes '[PC sim]' context indicating it applies to the simulator, which gives some context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, though the key discovery guidance ('Use crosspad_settings_get to discover valid keys') in the parameter schema provides practical usage direction. No explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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