adb_settings_put

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Write', indicating mutation, but lacks important details such as required permissions, side effects, persistence of changes, or error conditions. For a write operation that modifies device state, this is insufficient.

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 a single sentence of 11 words, containing no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the essential action and scope. Every word earns its place.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to mention that setting values is persistent, that some keys require specific permissions, or how to enumerate available keys (though the schema hints at 'adb_shell'). For a potentially destructive mutation tool, more context is needed to avoid misconfiguration.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already having a descriptive comment (namespace enum, key examples, value type hints, device serial). The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not degrade but also does not enhance understanding.

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 verb 'Write' and the resource 'Android settings value'. It specifies the scope ('any namespace') and lists the exact namespaces (system, secure, global). This distinguishes it from sibling tool 'adb_settings_get' which reads settings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that for reading settings one should use 'adb_settings_get', nor does it specify any prerequisites or conditions for writing settings. The agent receives no context about when this tool is appropriate.

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