set_fade_update_rate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the control target, the valid range, performance tradeoffs, and notably that changes take effect immediately for new look transitions. It stops short of stating persistence, permissions, or whether in-progress transitions are affected.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then explains the effect, range, and practical guidelines in a scannable list. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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 single-parameter setter with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, valid range, performance implications, and immediate effect on new transitions. It could mention how to read the current rate or whether the setting persists, but it is otherwise complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already documented with type, min, max, and a short description. The description adds meaningful semantic guidance by mapping rate ranges to CPU usage and smoothness, going beyond the schema's raw bounds.

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 states a specific verb (Set) and resource (fade engine update rate), and explains what the rate controls (DMX channel update frequency during look transitions). It clearly distinguishes from most siblings, though it does not explicitly reference the get_fade_update_rate counterpart.

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 description provides guidelines for selecting a rate value (10-30Hz for low CPU, 30-60Hz for balance, 60-120Hz for smoothness), which implicitly helps choose an appropriate setting. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_fade_update_rate, leaving tool-selection guidance implied.

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