Test that OSC input works

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 well: it discloses the exact OSC message, the localhost target and per-line port selection, the nonce-based matching criterion, the cleanup (variable deleted afterwards), the refusal cases, and the minimum bridge version. An agent knows the side effects and failure modes before calling.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool proves and how, then matching, cleanup, and prerequisites in logical order. The heavy parenthetical nesting in the first sentence makes it slightly harder to scan, but no sentence is wasted.

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 two-optional-parameter diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers the mechanism, the success criterion ('matched when the console ran it'), cleanup, refusal cases, and version requirements. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description echoes the `line` semantics (port of each line with Receive Command, or a single line) but adds no format or behavioral detail for `timeout_ms` beyond what the schema states, so it earns the baseline rather than more.

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?

States a specific action and resource: proving the console receives OSC by sending a SetUserVariable command and reading the variable back through the bridge. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling gma3_osc / gma3_configure_osc tools, which configure or send OSC rather than self-testing the input path.

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?

Gives clear preconditions and refusal conditions: it is refused when the variable already exists or OSC input is off, and it requires bridge 0.33.0 (plus 0.31.0's variable ops). It does not explicitly route the agent to a sibling when the test is unnecessary or fails, so it falls short of naming alternatives.

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