bosch_camera_privacy_sound_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the core behavior (enabling/disabling sound) and includes the API call format. However, it does not disclose requirements (e.g., camera permissions), side effects, or persistence. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 very concise with three clear sections: a sentence describing purpose, example usage with Python-like syntax, and the API endpoint. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values do not need description. The description covers the main functionality and parameter usage. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., camera must already exist) but is otherwise sufficient for a simple setter.

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 the `enabled` parameter well with examples (`True`/`False`). However, the `camera` parameter lacks any explanation of its format or how to obtain it. Thus, adds partial value.

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 the audible indicator for privacy mode changes. It uses specific verbs ('Enable or disable') and identifies the resource ('audible indicator'). The sibling `bosch_camera_privacy_sound_get` exists, so the description effectively distinguishes this as the setter.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: to change the audible indicator behavior. It implies usage for toggling sound on/off. While no explicit alternatives are named, the sibling `bosch_camera_privacy_sound_get` is the complementary read tool, making the distinction clear.

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