set_return_device_parameter

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the value must be within min/max range and says to use get_return_device_parameters first, but does not disclose side effects, error handling, or whether changes are undoable. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 compact: a one-sentence purpose, a usage hint, and a clean list of arguments. No wasted words.

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?

The description works for a simple setter, but lacks details about failure modes and what the output schema represents. However, the existence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain returns. It could benefit from noting that this tool is specific to return tracks, though the name already conveys that.

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?

All four parameters are individually described with zero-based index semantics and a range constraint for value, which is critical for correct usage. Schema coverage is 0%, so this description fully compensates.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('a parameter value on a device on a return track'), distinguishing it from similar tools like set_device_parameter and set_master_device_parameter.

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 provides clear guidance to call get_return_device_parameters first to discover parameters and ranges, establishing a proper workflow. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives for normal/master tracks.

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