Tap, double, halve or reset a speed master

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it states that a locked master is refused, that scale and tempo are verified afterwards, and that a single tap cannot be verified because the console needs an interval. It also notes network jitter when interval_ms sends multiple taps.

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 dense and front-loads the action semantics, with no filler sentences. It is structured as action: explanation, though the long semicolon chain slightly reduces readability.

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 mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, it provides strong behavioral context: preconditions, verification, and limitations. However, it leaves the meanings of verify and preview parameters unstated, so it is 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 33%, so the description must compensate. It maps the action enum values to console commands and clarifies taps/interval_ms behavior, but leaves master, verify, and preview undocumented.

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 names the resource (speed master) and the four distinct actions (learn/double/half/reset) with their console commands, so an agent can tell what the tool does without opening the schema. It differentiates itself from sibling configure/list tools by being action-oriented.

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 explains the effect of each action but never states when to choose this tool over siblings like gma3_configure_speed_master or gma3_observe_tempo. Usage is only implied through action semantics.

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