set_blackout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the core action and adds a useful behavioral detail about sending '1'/'0' spellings. However, it does not mention any side effects, reversibility, or what blackout means for the rig output beyond the schema parameter 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 remarkably concise: one clear main sentence and one clarifying sentence about argument handling. Every sentence earns its place, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter boolean setter, the description combined with the schema and output schema is nearly complete. It lacks only broader usage guidance or notes about interaction with other console states, but these are not critical for such a straightforward tool.

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 100% and the single boolean parameter is well described in the schema ('True to black out the rig, False to restore it'). The description's note about accepted spellings adds peripheral context but does not enhance the semantic meaning of the parameter itself.

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 identifies the tool's action: 'Turns the console's blackout on or off.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and this tool is distinct from all siblings (which handle macros, cues, playbacks, etc.).

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, or about any prerequisites or exclusions. The description simply states what it does, leaving usage context entirely implied.

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