Set Linear

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely important behavioral gate — non-zero intensities require confirm=true — which an agent could not infer from the schema defaults. However, it omits what happens at level=0 (presumably stopping extension), acceptable intensity ranges, whether the change is immediate or reversible, and any device/session requirements.

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?

A single compact sentence with the safety constraint front-loaded and no filler. Brevity is nearly optimal, though the same sentence could have absorbed the intensity range without bloat.

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 described. For a two-parameter mutation tool on a physical actuator, though, the description should define the intensity scale and the effect of zero, which are the main open questions an agent would have before calling it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for both parameters: level is 'extension intensity' and confirm must be true for non-zero values. It still leaves level's units, valid range, and sign convention undefined, so the 0% coverage gap is only partially filled.

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 plus resource: set the DK-META2 extension/linear intensity. Combined with the sibling family (set_suction, set_vibration, set_rotary), the name plus description make clear this is the linear-motion actuator control, though the text never explicitly contrasts itself with those alternatives.

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 only guidance is a conditional rule for the confirm parameter ('non-zero values must have confirm=true'), which is really parameter semantics rather than when-to-use routing. There is no statement of when linear extension should be preferred over set_vibration/set_rotary/set_suction, nor any prerequisite about device connection state.

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