mc3000_set_basic

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Set basic device settings,' which implies a write operation, but does not mention idempotency, error conditions, required authentication, or side effects. The lack of detail leaves the agent without critical behavioral context.

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 extremely concise at 4 words, but it sacrifices informative content. While it is front-loaded and has no waste, it fails to earn its place by providing sufficient functional context. A more balanced description with additional key details would be appropriate.

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 the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention device type, return values, error cases, or how parameters interact. The agent cannot reliably use this tool based solely on the provided description.

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 only 17% (only temp_unit has a description). The description adds no parameter information beyond the parameter names. While names like 'display' and 'input_mv' are somewhat self-explanatory, the schema lacks ranges, units, or formats for most parameters. The description does not compensate for this gap.

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 'Set basic device settings' clearly states the action (set) and resource (device settings). It is a specific verb+resource combination, but it does not differentiate from siblings like mc3000_apply_profile, which also sets settings but via a profile. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mc3000_get_basic (reading settings) or mc3000_apply_profile (applying a profile). The description does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring a connection (via mc3000_connect), or conditions for use.

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