Configure OSC input and output

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so: lines are UDP, changes are validated first, every write is read back, a port change on a receiving line re-binds input with ~0.4 s of downtime, there is no undo but previous holds prior values, and bridge 0.33.0 is required. It also discloses the security consequence of network: true (the console listens on every interface, so reachable parties can run commands), which is exactly the kind of beyond-schema behavior an agent needs.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core action and every clause (downtime, undo, version requirement, security gate) earns its place. The middle section is a dense run-on that could be split into bullets, but nothing is redundant filler.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with a nested line array, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers safety, reversibility, downtime, prerequisites, and a testing sibling. It omits return-value expectations and leaves verify and the enable_input/enable_output switches unexplained, so it is strong but not fully 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 only 25%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it enumerates the per-line fields (name, port, prefix, destination_ip, receive, receive_command, send, send_command, echo_input, echo_output, note) and explains the semantics and prerequisites of network, preview, and exclusive. Gaps remain for verify, enable_input/enable_output, and how the line number field addresses an existing line versus add/remove.

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 opens with a specific verb-and-resource statement: switch OSC input/output, set the preferred IP, and add/edit/remove OSC lines. It even enumerates the line fields, so an agent knows exactly the resource being mutated and can distinguish it from read-only siblings like gma3_osc.

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?

It gives concrete operational guidance: requires exclusive: true, preview: true shows the plan, test with gma3_test_osc_input, and network: true is required in two named situations. What it lacks is an explicit statement of when to use this versus gma3_osc (presumably the inspection counterpart), so routing between those two is left to inference.

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