set_display

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the domain—nothing about whether omitted settings persist, whether changes survive a power cycle, or what happens to the RGB when dynamic mode and static speed interact. Most of its content restates the schema's own ranges (5-55 brightness, colours 1-9).

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the parenthetical grouping maps visually onto the parameter structure. It is dense but every clause corresponds to a real parameter group, so little is wasted.

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?

For a mutation tool with a nested object, zero required parameters and no output schema, the description is thinner than ideal: it omits partial-update semantics and does not resolve the ambiguous rgb.dynamic reference. It does at least cover the full surface area of the four parameters, which prevents it from being inadequate.

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 only 25%, and the nested rgb object is largely undocumented, so the description does meaningful work by naming dynamic mode, brightness, colour, static speed and colour sequence as the RGB sub-settings. However, it explains none of the enum meanings (soft/bright, I/II/III, the auto-shutdown values) and gives no hint about the odd rgb.dynamic $ref to footswitch_page.

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 names a specific resource domain (display and power settings) and enumerates the concrete sub-settings it governs: brightness, auto shutdown, footswitch page mode and the RGB light block. It is identifiable against siblings such as set_global or set_mixer, though it uses a topic label rather than an explicit verb like 'Set'.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus set_global, set_system_byte or get_settings, and no prerequisites are given. It also does not say whether a call with a subset of the (all-optional) parameters patches only those fields or resets the others, which is the key decision an agent must make before invoking it.

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