Set Rotary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the safety gate that non-zero levels require confirm=true, but it omits other important behavior: whether the setting applies immediately, what confirm=true actually authorizes, valid level ranges, and whether the change is reversible or requires an active connection.

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?

One compact sentence with the core action and the critical nonzero/confirm constraint front-loaded after the semicolon. There is no filler, and every clause carries useful 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 the description need not explain return values. But with no annotations and only partial behavioral/schema coverage, the definition still lacks enough detail about level ranges, device prerequisites, and the exact meaning of confirm to be fully self-contained for a state-changing device setter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies level as rotation intensity and explains the confirm requirement for non-zero levels, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. It still does not define valid level ranges, units, or what confirm=false means when level is zero.

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 (设置/set) and resource (DK-META2 旋转强度), so the agent knows this controls rotary intensity rather than suction, vibration, or linear motion. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the modality is specific enough to distinguish it from the other set_* tools.

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 gives one important usage condition: non-zero values require confirm=true. However, it does not say when to choose set_rotary instead of set_linear/set_vibration, nor does it state prerequisites such as device connection or the effect of setting level to zero.

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