set_boot_device

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint and non-readonly, but the description adds significant context: approval gating, typed outcome on denial, 'none' clearing behavior, persistence via 'once=false', legacy BIOS via 'uefi=false', and fast-fail on unadvertised targets. This goes well beyond the structured hints.

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 compact and front-loaded with purpose, then packs relevant behavioral details into a short paragraph. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, mutation, approval flow) and lack of output schema, the description covers the key behaviors, prerequisites, and failure modes. Gaps remain around the 'confirm' and 'profile' parameters and exact return shape, but the overall guidance is strong.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description carries the burden. It explains the semantics of 'none', 'once', and 'uefi' in plain language, but leaves 'confirm' and 'profile' unexplained. Partial compensation only.

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 and resource: 'Set the next-boot (or persistent) boot device via BootSourceOverride.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like boot_options by emphasizing mutability ('CONFIG MUTATION') and mentions the mechanism.

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 actionable guidance by telling users to 'call boot_options first to see allowable' targets, establishing a clear precondition. However, it does not explicitly contrast when to use this tool versus alternative mutation tools or describe exclusions, so it's slightly below the top tier.

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