set_device_parameter

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It adds important context about value clipping ('Value is clipped to the parameter's min..max if out of range') and the need to discover parameter indices beforehand. It does not disclose error behavior or side effects beyond the mutation, but for a setter tool, the provided information is substantial and not redundant.

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 primary action and the critical clipping constraint, followed by a structured parameter list. It is slightly longer due to the parameter explanations, but each sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff. The structure aids quick scanning.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple siblings), the description covers all necessary information: parameter semantics, the prerequisite discovery tool, and the clipping behavior. It omits return value details, but for a setter tool, that is acceptable. It also does not discuss error handling for invalid indices, but the prerequisite mitigates this gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must fully compensate for parameter meaning. It does so by explaining each parameter: track_index (track containing device, ignored for master), device_index (position in chain), parameter_index (from get_device_parameters), value (clipped), and track_kind (default, alternatives). This provides clear semantic value beyond the schema's bare types and defaults.

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: 'Set a parameter on a device to a specific value.' This is a specific verb+resource formulation that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_device_parameters (reading) and set_device_routing (routing parameters). It also specifies the required parameters in the context, 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?

The instruction to 'Call get_device_parameters first to discover the parameter index and valid range' provides an explicit prerequisite and a direct alternative tool, guiding the agent on proper usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative mutation tools, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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