select_device

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered; the description's real contribution is disclosing that this mutates Live's UI state by bringing the device view on screen. It does not say what happens when the target device is ambiguous or missing, or whether the previous view selection is lost.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the rationale second; nothing is redundant. The phrase "for computer use" is slightly vague but does real work by hinting at the intended downstream workflow.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but for a four-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions the definition leaves the identification logic (name vs index, track_type values) entirely undocumented. The agent must guess how to target a device, which is the core of the call.

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 carries the full burden, yet it only says "a device" without explaining track_index, track_type, or the precedence between the optional device_name and device_index. With two overlapping ways to identify the device and no documented resolution rule, an agent cannot reliably construct a call.

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 ("Select a device") plus the concrete side effect of opening Live's device view, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_device_params or insert_device. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead when the goal is only to read or modify parameters.

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 trailing clause "so its Configure button and plug-in window toggle are on screen for computer use" implies the use case (preparing the UI for a screenshot/computer-use follow-up), but it never states when-not to use it or which alternative to pick if the device view is irrelevant. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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