set_beat_repeat_enabled

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: it mentions the recheck of the device/routing/transport snapshot before writing, reports the immediately observed value, and explicitly disclaims beat-scheduled execution, captured buffer, and audible effect. This sets accurate expectations for the agent, and there is no contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false).

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes crucial behavioral disclaimers without fluff. Every sentence earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and limitations but does not explicitly walk through the two-step plan/execute flow. However, the schema descriptions for dryRun, planHash, and confirmationToken fill that gap. The description is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's operation, but could be slightly more explicit about the workflow.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a high-level mention of 'Plan or request' which hints at the dryRun/confirmationToken flow, but it does not elaborate on parameter relationships or add details beyond the schema. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 action: 'Plan or request one exact native Beat Repeat Repeat choice, Off or On.' It specifies the resource (Beat Repeat's Repeat toggle) and the exact options, distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_beat_repeat_grid and set_beat_repeat_interval. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 does not explicitly contrast this tool with its siblings or state when to use it versus alternatives. It implies the use case (setting the enabled state of Beat Repeat) but leaves the selection logic to the agent. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided, though the tool name and schema make the primary use clear.

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