put_lcd_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only lists error codes without explaining their meaning or providing details on behavior such as partial updates, allowable ranges beyond schema, or side effects. The limited disclosure is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

Description is extremely concise, with the purpose stated in the first sentence and error codes listed efficiently. No wasted words or unnecessary information.

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 the tool has 3 optional parameters and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks clarity on the meaning of error codes, whether the update is incremental or full, and what the default behavior is when parameters are omitted. The output schema is present but the description does not leverage it.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., if orientation_forced affects orientation).

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?

Description explicitly states 'Update the LcdConfig', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'get_lcd_config' and other 'put_*' tools by targeting a specific configuration.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied that this tool is for updating LCD settings, but no context is given for prerequisite conditions or when to prefer it over related tools.

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