umouse_reconfigure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that a controlled session restart occurs, that all online devices are disconnected, that event buffering survives, and that devices auto-reconnect. Missing pieces are the return shape and whether the restart is immediate or deferred, but the primary destructive side effect is stated plainly.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the capability, then the restart caveat, then the usage condition. Dense but each clause is meaningful; only the parenthetical device-recovery note could arguably be trimmed.

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 mutation tool with six optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the side effect, the state preservation behavior, and the intended scope. An agent has enough to decide and call correctly; only return-value expectations and restart timing remain unstated.

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 every parameter (including the nested USB/BLE fields and the null-to-reset semantics) is already documented in the schema. The description's enumeration of config categories merely mirrors the schema's property set without adding format or constraint detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (reconfigure, requiring session restart) and enumerates the exact configuration surface: work mode, USB/BLE identifiers, device limit, and speech-key auto-record. This distinguishes it from runtime-operation siblings like umouse_set_dpi or umouse_audio_record, though it never names a sibling to contrast with explicitly.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use condition ('only when connecting non-default devices') and an implied when-not ('generally keep environment variable configuration unchanged'), which steers the agent away from casual invocation. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for routine runtime changes, but the context is unambiguous.

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