set_device_sidechain_routing

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the guarded planning/apply flow, rejection of unsupported devices or ambiguous choices, and the limitation that external sidechain isn't auto-enabled. It complements the readOnlyHint=false annotation by clarifying what the write operation does and its constraints.

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?

Three tightly written sentences with no filler. The primary verb and scope are front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence contributes behavioral or usage insight 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?

The description, combined with the fully documented schema parameters, covers the essential flow: plan/apply, guardrails, and post-change refresh. It doesn't explicitly describe the response format, but no output schema is providedasi it's not required. The only minor gap is a lack of detail on what constitutes 'ambiguous choices,' but overall the tool is adequately specified for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and the schema descriptions already document all eight parameters, including the dryRun/planHash/confirmationToken flow. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond reinforcing the 'source type or channel change' scope, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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+resource combination: 'Plan or apply one guarded native device-sidechain source type or channel change.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by scoping to native sidechain routing and by not handling external sidechain automatically, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 gives actionable guidance: read refreshed channels after a source type change, and be aware that unsupported devices and ambiguous choices are rejected. It also notes that external sidechain is not enabled automatically, hinting at an alternative path, though it stops short of explicitly naming sibling tools like get_device_sidechain_routing.

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