Set mode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does disclose a non-obvious behavioral side effect—powering the unit on—which adds transparency. However, it omits other potentially important behaviors such as failure conditions, response format, or how this interacts with set_power.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences convey the primary purpose and a key side effect with no filler. The description is efficient, though 'operating mode' is slightly redundant with the title.

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 simple setter, the description covers the core action and a notable side effect, and the schema handles parameter details. But with no output schema and no annotations, there is no indication of return values or confirmation, and the overlap with set_power is left ambiguous.

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 100%, so the descriptions for mac, mode, and name already fully document the parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameter semantics beyond the word 'mode' in the verb phrase.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Set') and the resource ('operating mode'), and it adds a meaningful secondary behavior ('Also powers the unit on'). It is specific enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not explicitly separate itself from set_power, which also relates to power state.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The note about powering the unit on hints at a use case, but the description never says to use set_power for power-only control or clarifies the relationship between the two tools.

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