Set an Omarchy feature (verified)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses specialized toggle routes and verifies final state, which adds some behavioral insight beyond a simple toggle. However, it does not mention side effects, error conditions, reversibility, or prerequisites (e.g., permissions, availability of Omarchy 4). For a mutation tool, this is a moderate gap.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds relevant behavioral context. Every clause 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?

The tool is simple (two enums, no output schema), and the description covers the core action and verification. However, it does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., final state, confirmation, error) or how errors are handled, which an agent would need for correct invocation. Since annotations are absent and there is no output schema, this is a notable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the three features and the toggle/on/off states, which maps directly to the enums in the schema. It adds context that these are Omarchy-specific and mentions 'specialized toggle routes', but it does not explain default behavior (e.g., default state is toggle, which is in the schema) or provide additional semantics beyond the enum names. It adds some value but mostly restates the structure.

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 states a specific action (toggle/enable/disable) applied to a specific resource (nightlight, screensaver, suspend availability) and adds a distinguishing detail ('Handles Omarchy 4's specialized toggle routes and verifies final state') that separates it from generic toggles like wifi_toggle or mic_mute_toggle. An agent can immediately recognize the scope.

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 clearly scopes the tool to three named features, which implies it is the right choice for those and not for wifi/bluetooth or other toggles. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or state a 'when not to use' condition, leaving the agent to infer based on sibling names. This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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