bosch_camera_autofollow_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main behavior (enable/disable), hardware dependency, and error condition. It does not detail side effects or response format, but for a toggle tool this is adequate. No contradiction with annotations as none exist.

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 concise with three sentences, each adding value. The first sentence sets the purpose, the second adds a usage constraint, and the third provides the API endpoint and body format. No redundant information.

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?

Given the output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description need not explain return values. It covers the hardware requirement, error handling, and API details. For a simple set operation, this is near-complete, though adding a note that it performs a write operation would enhance completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'enabled' is a boolean for turning auto-tracking on/off, but does not specify the format or expected values for the 'camera' parameter (likely an ID string). The API body example clarifies the structure, yet the camera parameter remains ambiguous.

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 states the tool enables or disables 360° auto-tracking for one camera, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings, such as bosch_camera_autofollow_get which retrieves the state, by indicating this tool is for setting the autofollow 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?

The description provides explicit context on when to use the tool: only for 360° indoor cameras with panLimit > 0. It also specifies the error raised for unsupported camera types. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as for non-360° cameras, beyond the error condition.

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