bosch_camera_white_balance_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the valid input range, generation compatibility, the exact API endpoint, and that it is a full-body write with GET-merged semantics. This gives meaningful behavioral insight beyond the tool name, though it stops short of explaining side effects or permission requirements.

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, front-loaded with the intended action, and every sentence contributes. The first sentence establishes the purpose and constraints; the second provides useful API-level detail without padding.

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 a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the range and API but leaves the 'camera' parameter unexplained and omits clear guidance on permissions or failure conditions. The output schema exists, so return value documentation is less critical, but the missing camera semantics and preconditions make it only moderately 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?

The schema provides no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the 'value' parameter via the white balance range (-1.0..1.0), but it does not explain the 'camera' parameter or its expected format beyond the schema's basic string type. Thus coverage is partial but helpful.

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's action: 'Set the front light's white balance' with a specified numeric range and a Gen2-only compatibility constraint. It is a specific verb + resource that distinguishes it from siblings like bosch_camera_white_balance_get and bosch_camera_light_set.

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 explicitly states a key usage constraint ('Gen2 cameras only') and clarifies the operation is a write/update to lighting settings. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, but the scope is sufficiently clear to infer when this tool applies.

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