チェックボックス／トグルを設定

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for a mutation tool. It does not state idempotency, what happens if the label name is not found, whether the change persists across snapshot/export, or error behavior for an invalid label.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the action and its key are stated first, followed by examples. No filler, though the examples occupy most of the length without adding usage or parameter-constraint 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?

For a two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate — it says what it does and gives target examples. It omits error/failure semantics and any indication of how to obtain valid label names, which matters since the labels are UI-dependent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'name' is a label name (not a free-form key) and gives three concrete example labels, and that 'checked' corresponds to ON/OFF. That covers both parameters at a basic level, but gives no format/length/constraint details or how labels are discovered.

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?

States a specific verb (設定する/set) and resource (チェックボックスのON/OFF) plus the selection key (ラベル名). An agent can tell what it does, but nothing distinguishes it from sibling tools like jizura_click or jizura_fill, which could plausibly also target UI toggles.

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?

Provides example label names, which hints at intended targets, but never says when to use this versus jizura_click/jizura_fill, nor any prerequisites (e.g., that the label must already exist in the current UI). No when/when-not guidance.

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