set_orientation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden; it does convey that this mutates device display state and is reversible via the auto option. It omits permission/authorization needs, persistence across reboots, and side effects on running apps, which are the remaining behavioral facts an agent would need.

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 zero filler that covers the full behavior set. Nothing to trim, nothing buried.

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 4-param setter with no output schema, the schema itself handles return-shape concerns via the 'observe' enum, so the description's shortfall is limited. Still, it leaves device targeting, side effects, and permissions to inference, which leaves the definition adequate rather than complete.

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 75% and the schema already documents serial, observe, and settle_ms thoroughly. The description adds only one piece of meaning beyond the schema: that 'auto' means re-enabling auto-rotation, which maps the enum to intent — helpful but marginal, so baseline 3 is right.

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 and resource ('lock the screen to portrait or landscape') and enumerates the reversible alternative ('re-enable auto-rotation'), covering all three enum values. It doesn't differentiate itself from any sibling, though none of the listed siblings overlap in the orientation domain.

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 mutating action implies when it is relevant, but there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to read-only siblings like get_screen_info or screenshot. The agent must infer the context of use.

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