set_device_parameter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It helpfully clarifies that values are expressed in 'Live parameter units' and that valid indices must be discovered first, but it says nothing about out-of-range behavior (clamping vs. error), whether the value is quantized to discrete parameter steps, or whether the change is undoable — meaningful gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, the prerequisite follows, and the parameter list is scannable. Every line contributes information that is absent from the structured schema, with no filler or restatement of the name.

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 no explanation, and the parameter block covers the schema well. However, for a destructive-by-nature mutation with no annotations, the description omits error/failure behavior and any indication of whether parameter writes can be rejected or silently clamped, leaving an agent without the information needed to handle a failed or partially applied write.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains each of the four required indices' roles in the track→device→parameter hierarchy and documents the non-obvious sentinel track_index = -1 for the master track. It also explains that user_prompt is telemetry metadata, which the schema does not convey. The 'value' semantics remain thin beyond 'Live parameter units', with the actual range deferred to get_device_parameters.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Set a device parameter to a specific value'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling reader tool get_device_parameters. It stops short of explicitly naming what it is not, but the verb/resource pair is specific enough that no sibling could be confused with it.

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 sequencing prerequisite: call get_device_parameters first to discover indices and ranges, which is real when-to-use guidance and points at the correct alternative tool. It does not state when not to use this tool (e.g. for automatable vs. non-automatable parameters) or any failure conditions, so it falls short of full 5-level routing guidance.

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