Configure auto-swap

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

The description discloses key behaviors: enabling schedules the next run, clears a self-disabled flag, and that only passed fields are changed (partial updates). It also warns about the empty-queue case where the rotation runs but does nothing. No annotations exist, so this textual transparency is valuable and goes beyond a generic description.

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 concise yet information-dense. It uses four short sentences covering purpose, side effects, update semantics, and a cautionary note. No filler words; every sentence adds value. The structure is logical: what it does, what happens on enable, how updates work, and a warning.

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 configuration tool, it covers the essential aspects: the primary action (toggle), side effects (scheduling, flag clearing), partial updates, and a notable edge case (empty queue). It doesn't mention potential errors or return values, but given the lack of an output schema and simple nature, it's adequately complete. A minor gap is not stating what happens when disabling, but that's likely intuitive.

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 schema already provides descriptions for each parameterlied. The description adds meaningful semantics: 'Every field is optional: only what is passed changes' clarifies the update behavior, and the queue dependency (empty queue yields a no-op) is essential for correct usage. This goes beyond the per-parameter 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 clearly states the tool's function: to turn automatic thumbnail rotation on/off and set its rules. It identifies the target (a game's auto-swap) and the major actions (enable/disable, configure parameters). It also distinguishes it from related tools like get_auto_swap (which would be used to read settings).

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 provides concrete usage context: it explains when to use the tool (to modify auto-swap settings) and warns to check get_queue before enabling, implying a prerequisite. It doesn't explicitly contrast with get_auto_swap for reading, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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