set_device_layout

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

The annotations declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false), and the description adds genuinely new context: the value is stored locally and does not touch OpenDeck. That clarifies the blast radius in a way the annotations alone don't. It stops short of saying what happens on overwrite of an existing layout.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its condition, then the caution. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 the annotations cover safety. The description handles the when-to-use question well. It is only slightly short on parameter constraints and overwrite semantics for a local-config mutation.

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 33% – only 'device' is documented (pointing to get_overview). The description's phrase 'key grid size' loosely implies what rows/columns mean, so it partially compensates, but it adds no units, ranges, or validity constraints for those two required integers.

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 verb+resource is specific: it sets a device's key grid size and states the trigger condition ('when it can't detect it'). The parenthetical 'stored locally; doesn't touch OpenDeck' further scopes what kind of write this is, distinguishing it from live-mutation siblings. It doesn't name a sibling explicitly, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It gives an explicit condition for use ('when it can't detect it') and an explicit when-not ('Usually unnecessary: the bridge plugin records it automatically'), naming the automatic path that normally replaces this call. An agent can decide whether to invoke this without inference.

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