set_system

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely does so: it explains the effect of each setting, including non-obvious ones (power_status OPEN 'boots directly after power application', low_power = '1 W standby', aux_output routes a signal to the rear [AUX OUT] connector). It does not disclose persistence (whether settings survive power-off/are saved to nonvolatile memory), permission/remote-mode requirements, or what happens to unspecified parameters.

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 terse header followed by one dense bullet per setting, each sentence carrying unique, actionable information with zero filler. Front-loaded identity is followed immediately by the enumerations an agent needs.

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, and the parameter documentation is nearly exhaustive for a 10-param write tool. Remaining gaps are the undocumented 'beeper' parameter and the absence of any guidance on partial updates or interaction with overlapping siblings.

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 document all 10 parameters and it documents nine of them with concrete accepted values and aliases (e.g. short readback codes accepted for language, LATest|DEFault for power_on, TOUT|PFAil for aux_output, explicit datetime format string). The 'beeper' parameter present in the schema is never mentioned, leaving one silent gap.

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 header states the resource (system settings) but calls it 'Misc', which is vague; the value comes from the enumerated sub-settings, which pin down exactly what can be changed. It is distinguishable from reset/clear_status/self_test by the setting list, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like set_datetime or set_display that overlap its scope.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given at all. There is an unaddressed overlap with the sibling set_datetime (covered here by the 'datetime' parameter) and set_display ('show_time'), yet the description offers no routing advice for choosing between them.

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