set_outputs

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds one genuinely useful trait beyond them: partial-update semantics where omitted channels keep their current state. It does not add anything further (no error behavior, no effect on signal/power state).

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 with zero filler, and the most decision-relevant constraint ('independently... preserving unspecified output state') is front-loaded.

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 (2 optional booleans, no output schema, no nesting), and the description covers purpose plus the partial-update behavior. It leaves unanswered what the two channel parameters map to and what happens on failure, which matters given the zero schema description coverage.

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 must compensate. It does partially: 'preserving unspecified output state' explains that a null/omitted channel leaves state unchanged, which is the key semantic for the two optional boolean params. It never maps ch1/ch2 to specific channels or states the true/false meaning explicitly, so the agent still infers the per-parameter mapping.

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 pair ('Enable or disable') and a specific resource ('outputs'), and the words 'independently' and 'preserving unspecified output state' distinguish it from the sibling stop_outputs, which presumably acts on all outputs at once. Clear enough for an agent to choose between them, though neither sibling is named explicitly.

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 context is implied rather than stated: 'independently' and 'preserving unspecified output state' signal this is for selective/per-output changes rather than a bulk stop. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-stop_outputs routing, so the agent must infer it.

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