set_output_device

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It says the tool routes audio output but does not disclose whether the change is persistent, what happens if the device is unavailable, whether it affects other streams, or any 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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and the prerequisite guidance immediately after. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a simple single-parameter setter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the key prerequisite. It could still be more complete by noting behavior on invalid device names or whether the routing is persistent, but it is adequate.

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 100%, and the schema itself documents the single device_name parameter with examples. The description only restates 'by name' and does not add syntax, format, or matching semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb ('Route') and resource ('system audio output') with a clear scope modifier ('to a specific device by name'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_input_device, set_volume, and set_device_volume.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to call list_audio_devices first to discover valid device names, which is a clear prerequisite. It does not describe when not to use this tool or name alternative routing tools, so it lacks the full when/when-not/alternatives guidance of a 5.

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