設定を変更

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation changes settings and can return 401 without WRITE_SETTINGS permission, which is useful context. However, it does not explain side effects, whether changes are immediate/reversible, or what happens for invalid keys.

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 short, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence earns its place: purpose, example, and permission caveat. It is concise without being minimal to the point of uselessness.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a usable overview, example, and an error condition. Still, it omits how to discover valid categories, what the return/response looks like, and whether the device parameter should usually be specified.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value with a concrete example ('category=picture settings={backlight: 60}') that illustrates how the category and settings parameters relate, going slightly beyond the generic 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 changes system settings ('システム設定を変更する') and includes a concrete example with category and settings. It is distinct from get_settings but does not explicitly differentiate itself from other sibling mutators like set_volume.

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 implies usage by stating what it does and giving an example, but it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, conditions, or alternatives. It does mention a firmware-dependent permission failure, but not how to choose this tool over siblings.

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