pikvm_set_calibration

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

Discloses the calculation formula and example, but lacks information on side effects (e.g., whether it overrides existing calibration, persists, or has boundaries). Since no annotations exist, the description should cover more behavioral context like persistence or safe ranges.

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?

Two concise sentences plus an example. No wasted words; all information is directly relevant. Front-loaded with the action and formula.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description is largely adequate for a simple calibration setter. It explains purpose, parameters, and usage scenario. Could mention how to revert or that values are applied 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?

Input schema already describes parameters with coverage (100%), but the description adds value by explaining how to calculate the factors and providing a concrete example. This goes beyond the schema's typical range hint.

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: setting mouse coordinate calibration factors. It uses specific verb-resource combination ('Set mouse coordinate calibration factors') and distinguishes from sibling tools that handle calibration differently (auto_calibrate, clear_calibration).

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?

Provides an explicit example of when to use the calibration factors after a mismatch, but does not contrast with alternatives like pikvm_auto_calibrate. The example implies usage when auto calibration is off, but no explicit '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.