set_ai_detection

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that enabling is free while disabling removes a safety net and requires confirm=true, and warns that the tool only flips the firmware flag and cannot start QIDI's camera service. That tells the agent about a hidden prerequisite and a failure mode the schema and annotations never expose.

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 tight sentences: purpose and accepted values first, then the safety-relevant confirm rule, then the limitation and verification step. No filler, and the most consequential facts are front-loaded.

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 not be explained; the description instead covers the things it can't: accepted values, the confirm requirement for the risky direction, a limitation, and a verification follow-up. Nothing an agent needs before calling it is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: it supplies the detector values ('noodle'/'foreign'), the sensitivity levels (LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH), the meaning of enabled, and the condition under which confirm must be set. All four parameters gain meaning that the bare schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: enable or disable one of the Max4's AI failure detectors, and names both detectors with their meanings ('noodle' spaghetti, 'foreign' debris). An agent knows exactly which operation this performs and can distinguish it from set_led, set_fan_speed, and other setters.

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?

Gives clear situational guidance ('Worth enabling before a long unattended print') and names the follow-up verification tool get_ai_detection_status. It does not spell out when not to use it or name an alternative setter, but the intended context is unambiguous.

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