set_device_parameters

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

Annotations only say it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world tool. The description goes well beyond that: it discloses that all changes happen "in one undo step," that the operation is atomic ("If any entry is invalid, nothing changes"), and that undo_last restores the whole batch. It also warns that raw values are not units and that the displayed result must be checked and re-set, which is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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 key constraint (one undo step, atomic failure) is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds new information — the value-mapping rule, the units caveat, the atomicity guarantee. Slightly dense prose and an example inline keep it from being perfectly economical, but there is no 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 a three-parameter mutation tool with a nested free-form object and no output schema, the description covers most of what matters: atomicity, undo recovery, value encoding, and a post-call verification hint. The unexplained `track` parameter is the main remaining shortfall.

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 0%, but the description compensates well for `values` (parameter names case-insensitive, values bounded by min/max, switch items as strings, with a concrete example) and partly for `device_path` (defined by reference to read_device). However the `track` parameter and the integer-array shape of device_path get no explanation at all, leaving a real 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Change parameters of one device") and immediately scopes it via a sibling reference ("device_path as in read_device"). This distinguishes it cleanly from read_device and set_track_mix in the sibling list.

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 clearly points the agent at read_device to obtain device_path and valid parameter names, and at undo_last to revert. It does not explicitly say when not to use it (e.g. versus a single-parameter setter), but the context is clear enough to select it correctly.

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