update_screen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. 'Update' implies mutation, but the description does not explain whether the update is partial or full-replacement, whether it affects existing settings not listed, what permissions are required, or what the response format is. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the action, the resource, and key settings. Every word is informative, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the tool's purpose.

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 has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, but the description only states what it updates without explaining the update behavior (e.g., partial vs. full update), potential side effects, or error conditions. While the schema fully documents parameters, the description does not provide enough operational context for an agent to safely invoke the tool in different scenarios.

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%, meaning every parameter already has a description. The tool description adds a high-level grouping ('dimensions' for width/height) but does not add significant semantic details beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already provides thorough parameter documentation.

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 'Update' and the resource 'DAKboard screen's settings', listing specific fields (name, orientation, dimensions, refresh rate). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like update_block (different resource) and get_screen/list_screens (read operations).

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 implies when to use the tool (when updating screen settings) and clearly identifies the target resource, but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it. For example, it doesn't state that get_screen should be used for reading or that update_block is for blocks. This context is implicit from the tool name and sibling list.

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