Set Suction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden; it does disclose the important safety guard that a non-zero level requires confirm=true, which is genuine behavioral value. It omits what happens physically on invocation, whether the suction is momentary or sustained ('一次' hints one-shot but is not clarified), and what failure looks like if no suction is matched.

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 dense sentence with no waste, front-loading the action and then the parameter constraints. It is arguably over-compressed, packing a prerequisite and a safety rule into one clause, but nothing is redundant.

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 needn't be explained. Yet for an unannotated actuation tool, the description leaves out error behavior when no matched suction exists, whether the effect is one-shot or continuous, and how to stop it — meaningful gaps for a device-control call.

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, and it largely does: it defines 'level' as protocol strength on a 1–100 scale and states the confirm=true requirement for non-zero levels. Remaining gaps are minor — units/duration for level and why confirm defaults to false are left to 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 gives a concrete verb and resource ('trigger a suction already matched to TF-PTPRO'), which tells an agent this fires an existing suction action rather than configuring one. It falls short of distinguishing itself explicitly from siblings like set_vibration or stop_device, and the 'trigger' framing sits slightly at odds with the 'set_' name prefix.

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 supplies one real precondition ('已匹配 TF-PTPRO' — must already be matched) and the confirm gating rule, which together imply when the call is valid. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over set_vibration/set_rotary, nor how to terminate the suction afterward.

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