set_monitor_config

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that 'keyword' is a config-value setter (unlike dispatch), mentions potential version-dependent behavior, and warns about errors with an alternative. This provides good transparency for an agent.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then provides additional context. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds information. Could be more concise, but still efficient.

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?

Given a single parameter, no output schema, and the context signals, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, syntax, usage, and potential pitfalls. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The schema already describes the 'config' parameter with 100% coverage and an example. The description reinforces this with more examples and explains the syntax, adding value beyond the schema.

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 it applies a monitor config via 'hyprctl keyword monitor', using the same syntax as hyprland.conf's monitor= line. It lists specific use cases: resolution, position, scale, enable-disable changes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hyprland_dispatch and set_config_option.

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 tells when to use the tool (for monitor configuration changes) and contrasts it with the 'dispatch' mechanism, noting version-specific behaviors and an alternative Lua config approach. It does not explicitly say when not to use, but the context is clear.

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