set_output_device

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description's 'Switch' adds little beyond the structured hints. It doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., affects all applications, may require privileges, persists across reboots) or what happens on failure. With annotations present, the description adds minimal context.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no fluff, which is good. However, it is too sparse to be useful; the conciseness is not balanced with necessary detail. It could include the source of device_id and expected outcome without becoming verbose.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description should explain how to get the parameter and what the result is. It does neither. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without additional knowledge from external context.

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% and the description does not explain what device_id is, how to obtain it, or its format. The sibling 'audio_devices' likely provides valid IDs, but this connection is not made. The agent has no way to correctly fill the single required parameter.

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 specific verb ('Switch') and a clear resource ('default audio output device'), which clearly distinguishes it from volume, mute, and playback control siblings. However, it doesn't reference the related 'audio_devices' tool that would supply the device_id, nor does it explicitly exclude any sibling.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'audio_devices' or 'set_volume'. It doesn't mention that device_id should come from the list of devices or that this changes the system-wide default. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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