assign_zone_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that assignment replaces the previous one, takes effect on next drag, and is per-monitor. It also clarifies the default and edge behaviors, giving good context for a mutating operation.

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 sentences deliver all essential information: action, impact, special cases, and pointer to introspection. No fluff or repetition; each sentence contributes.

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 no output schema, the description fully covers behavior, including replacement semantics, timing, defaults, and how to discover available sets. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly and understand consequences.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'name' can be omitted to restore the default set, and that 'edge' is a special value for edge snapping. This clarifies optionality and special values.

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: 'Assign a zone set (built-in or saved) to one monitor.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like save_zone_set (which creates sets) and delete_zone_set (which removes them) by focusing on assignment to a monitor.

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 explicit parameter guidance: omitting 'name' restores default, passing 'edge' enables edge snapping, and directs users to get_state for available set names and assignments. It implies when to use this tool versus querying state, though it does not name alternative assignment tools explicitly.

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