Set Input

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

This description goes beyond the input schema by disclosing several important behaviors: the dependency on list_inputs, case-insensitivity, the exact error type and payload for unknown names, the side effect of waking the device via CEC, and the return of consolidated state. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly.

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, each carrying distinct information: the action, the source of valid values, error behavior, and side effects plus return value. It is front-loaded and free of redundancy.

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 tool with one string parameter, the description covers the source of valid values, error handling, side effects, and the return value. Combined with an output schema for the consolidated state, there are no significant gaps.

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 input schema only defines a string parameter `name` with no description, so coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that the name must be exactly the one returned by list_inputs and that case is ignored. It doesn't provide examples or format details, but for a single simple parameter this is sufficient.

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 selects an HDMI input by its exact name, which is a specific verb-resource pairing. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as list_inputs or set_power, but the action is distinct enough that an agent can infer it is for input selection.

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 clear usage context: the name must come from list_inputs, case is ignored, and unknown names return INPUT_NOT_FOUND with an `available` list. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name an alternative, but the exact-name requirement and error behavior give practical guidance.

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