set_device

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world writes, and the description does not contradict them. It adds genuine behavior beyond the annotations, notably that failures are reported per property and how option/routing/sample/view property names are resolved.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and the list of changeable fields, then dense but purposeful syntax detail; every clause carries information. The parenthetical examples make it run-on in places, but there is little padding.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description supplies the missing property-naming rules, the get_device dependency, and partial-failure behavior. The main gap is disambiguation from sibling device-mutation tools and how the track/device locators are resolved.

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 defines meaningful semantics for enabled, name, collapsed, compare_b and especially properties, including value formats for option, routing, sample.* and view.* keys. Only the two required locators (track, device) are left unexplained, though their meaning is largely self-evident.

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 ('Change a device') and enumerates exactly which attributes it can change (enabled, name, collapsed, compare_b, plus type-specific properties). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling set_device_parameters or device_action, so an agent cannot route between those purely from this text.

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 implies a workflow by pointing to get_device as the source of valid type-specific properties, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never states when to use this tool versus set_device_parameters, device_action, or set_track, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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