set_app_rule

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is largely covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond annotations: the change is staged, not live. It omits other relevant traits such as overwrite semantics for duplicate app/device rules and the fact that idempotentHint=false implies repeat calls are not no-ops.

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 short sentences with the effect front-loaded and the staging constraint second. No filler. 'Staged only' is slightly telegraphic, but it earns its place as the key operational caveat.

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 and annotations cover the safety profile, so return values and risk need not be restated. Still, for a mutation that participates in the stage/apply workflow alongside apply_changes, discard_changes and preview_changes, the description does not explain precedence, overwrite behavior, or how rules interact, leaving an agent to infer the workflow.

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 the schema already explains all three parameters in detail, including the 'opendeck_default' fallback and null-to-remove semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and outcome: create an app rule that automatically switches a device to a profile when an app is focused. That is clearly distinguishable from the read-side sibling get_app_rules and from set_key/manage_profile. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

'Staged only' implies the change must be committed via apply_changes/discard_changes, which is a real usage hint. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of get_app_rules for inspection, and no note about whether an existing rule for the same app/device is replaced.

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