Set oscillation (swing)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses a non-obvious trait: the tool applies per-device configured oscillation positions rather than accepting raw swing codes, which is not visible in the schema. However, it does not mention error conditions, prerequisites, or effects beyond toggling, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is two concise sentences that front-load the primary action and then provide a valuable behavioral clarification. There is no redundancy or repetition of schema information. Both sentences earn their place.

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 boolean setter with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and the key non-obvious behavior (using configured positions, no raw codes). Minor gaps such as handling of offline devices or response details are acceptable given the tool's simplicity. The definition is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, so schema_description_coverage is 100%. The description adds useful context about device configuration but does not provide additional per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 uses a precise verb and resource pair ('Enable or disable louver swing'), making the action unmistakable. It also stands apart from the sibling set_* tools by targeting a specific feature (oscillation/swing). The added detail about per-device configured positions reinforces what the tool does without ambiguity.

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?

While the description does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, the sibling list and the clear 'louver swing' scope make the selection context apparent. The phrase 'no raw swing codes required' provides a helpful hint about the intended abstraction level when deciding to invoke this tool. This is clear context, despite lacking explicit exclusions.

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