Set orientation

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds one useful piece of undisclosed behavior — the change is recorded in the environment-change log — and the platform restriction, but says nothing about effect on the running session or what happens when the platform condition is not met.

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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the allowed values, with no filler. The parenthetical platform note slightly interrupts the flow but costs almost nothing.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive setter with annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what the tool does, the allowed values, the platform boundary and a logging side effect. It remains thin on parameter meaning (sessionId) and on the outcome or failure mode of the call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It restates the orientation enum values already present in the schema, and sessionId — the other required parameter — receives no explanation at all in either place.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Set orientation') plus the concrete allowed values and the platform restriction ('Android Emulator only'). The only gap is that it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like qa_geolocation or qa_device_info, though the resource is distinct enough.

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?

'Android Emulator only' functions as an explicit applicability constraint, implicitly telling the agent not to call it on iOS or physical-device sessions. No alternative tool is named and no error behavior on unsupported platforms is described, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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