set_usb_mux

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

The description only restates the mutating nature of the operation ('Set') and references a driver method, adding no behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It does not disclose side effects on active USB connections, reversibility, or 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?

The description is a single compact sentence, front-loading the core action. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool but relies heavily on the driver name, which may be cryptic. It is not overly verbose.

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 that this is a destructive, non-idempotent operation with parameters that have no schema descriptions, the description is not complete enough. It lacks critical information about link values, ordering, persistence, and what 'links' mean. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters. It clarifies that 'place' should be an acquired place, but 'links' is only described as 'USB mux links' without any detail about valid formats, link names, or how to specify multiple links. This is insufficient.

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 uses a specific verb 'Set' and identifies the resource as 'USB mux links' on an 'acquired place', and references the driver method for precision. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like set_sd_mux or set_io by specifying USB mux and the acquired place requirement.

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?

The phrase 'on an acquired place' implies the tool should only be used after acquiring a place, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives like set_sd_mux, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond that.

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