umouse_set_channel_pref

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses the key side effect: switching runs at runtime and momentarily disconnects the current channel before re-probing. It does not cover persistence, error behavior, or return effects, but the main disruption is surfaced.

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?

Front-loads the action, then adds essential runtime behavior and mode meanings in a compact single sentence. It is dense but contains little waste; structure could be slightly clearer due to nested parenthetical and semicolon list.

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 tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is largely complete: it defines modes, default, switching behavior, and a relevant BLE condition. Minor gaps remain around persistence and error handling.

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?

The pref enum values are explained with operational meaning beyond the bare enum labels, including AUTO default and BLE edge case. The device_id parameter is left to the schema, which already documents omitting it as applying to all connected devices, so coverage is adequate rather than exhaustive.

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 and resource: setting channel preference, with the three accepted modes. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, so it lands at clear-but-no-sibling-differentiation rather than top marks.

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?

Gives clear runtime context, default behavior, and a specific BLE use case when the receiver is present but the mouse is on Bluetooth with USB falsely online. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons to sibling tools.

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