Set Eos Parameter (encoder-style absolute value)

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

Annotations already declare idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds valuable behavioral context, such as value ranges depending on the parameter (degrees for pan/tilt, 0-100 for colors) and the encoder-dialing equivalence. This goes beyond the structured data, though it does not detail potential side effects or error cases.

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 well-structured with an introductory sentence, a clear Args list, and a concrete example. It is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence serves a purpose. The example adds practical clarity without 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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate context: purpose, parameter meanings, range behavior, and an example. It lacks explicit error-handling or return-value information, but this is minor given the tool's simplicity. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 67%, leaving 'channel' undocumented. The description compensates by explaining the parameter name format and giving explicit examples for each argument. It also adds range dependency information for 'value', which is absent from the schema. This meaningfully enhances parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('non-intensity parameter') with clear scope ('to an absolute value for a specific channel'). It explicitly differentiates from siblings by stating 'non-intensity' and 'absolute value', contrasting with relative adjustments like eos_nudge_wheel. The example further concretizes the purpose.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for non-intensity parameters (pan, tilt, color) rather than intensity, which implies not using eos_set_channel_level. It also specifies 'absolute value' versus relative nudge, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or list explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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