set_screen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond annotations – audio keeps playing when the picture is off – but says nothing about state persistence, restoration, or error conditions for an unpairable TV.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and the key constraint. Nothing is wasted and no padding exists.

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, and annotations cover the mutation safety profile. For a simple two-parameter toggle the description is nearly complete; only the interaction with the 'power' sibling and TV-selection behavior remain implicit.

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%, so both parameters ('on' and 'tv') are already fully documented in the schema, including the note that false blanks the picture while sound continues and that omitting 'tv' uses the default. The description adds no parameter detail beyond this, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource (turn the picture on/off) and adds the distinguishing scope 'without affecting sound', which separates it from the sibling 'power' tool that presumably toggles the whole TV. However, it does not name the sibling it differs from, so the differentiation must be inferred.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'without affecting sound' – an agent can infer this is the right tool when audio must keep playing while the display blanks. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., 'power') is given.

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