timegate_select_clock

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does surface a genuinely non-obvious behavioral rule (lcdIndependence must come from the existing device configuration, no default is assumed) and the hardware gate, but it never states that this changes device state, whether the selection persists across reboots, or what errors occur when lcdIndependence mismatches.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the primary selection rule, then the per-screen case, then the hardware constraint. No filler; the guide reference is a single useful pointer rather than padding.

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 5-parameter, nested-target, no-output-schema, no-annotation mutation tool, the definition leaves out where clockId comes from, what the call returns, and any error/permission behavior. The hardware and independence notes are helpful but the required parameter's provenance is unexplained.

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 description coverage is only 40%, and the most important gap is clockId — the sole required parameter, which has no schema description and no explanation in the description (presumably an ID from the clock catalog). The description does add real meaning for lcdIndex (omitted = whole device) and lcdIndependence (must match existing config), partially compensating.

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?

A specific verb+resource ("Select a whole-device clock") with the scope condition stated up front (when lcdIndex is omitted) and a hardware applicability limit (TimeGate 400/402). It is not, however, differentiated from the sibling watchface_set_clock_select, which the agent may plausibly confuse with this one.

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?

Explicit usage branches are given: omit lcdIndex for whole-device selection, or supply lcdIndex plus lcdIndependence for a single screen, and it warns that no default independence ID is assumed. It lacks an exclusion or pointer to the nearest alternative (watchface_set_clock_select, timegate_command_list for discovering clockId).

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