cmw_bt_set_technology

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits, but it only repeats the enum options already in the schema. It does not reveal potential side effects (e.g., whether setting the technology resets other Bluetooth parameters), required permissions/authorization, or expected response behavior.

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 appropriately concise at a single sentence, but it lacks any structured elaboration that would aid an agent. It is neither bloated nor particularly well-organized; it reads as a bare minimum functional statement rather than a carefully crafted summary.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It does not mention the need for an active connection (inferred from host/port), the role of meas_instance, or how this setting interacts with other Bluetooth configuration tools, leaving the agent without sufficient context to use it safely.

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 only 50%, and the description does not compensate by explaining host, port, or meas_instance. The technology parameter's meaning is already implied by the enum values, so the description adds no substantive parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a clear action ('Set Bluetooth technology') and specifies the two options (Classic or Low Energy), making the resource and scope unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling Bluetooth configuration tools, but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cmw_bt_configure or cmw_bt_set_ble_mode. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., connection state) or conditions under which this setting should be changed, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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