assign_zone_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that assigning replaces the monitor's previous assignment, takes effect on the next drag, and that omitting the name restores the default set. It also clarifies the 'edge' special value and where to discover valid set names.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each of the four sentences contributes essential information: purpose, replacement/effect timing, parameter special cases, and where to find supported values. No redundant text or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, two parameters, and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, side effects, timing, default behavior, special values, and a pointer to get_state for supported names and current assignments. No major behavioral gap remains.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters, giving baseline 3. The description adds value by naming the default set ('Halves'), explaining per-monitor assignment semantics, and directing users to get_state for valid names, which goes beyond the schema's basic parameter definitions.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: assigning a zone set to a monitor. It differentiates the tool by explaining per-monitor assignments, replacement behavior, and special 'edge' and default-set handling, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like apply_layout.

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 description provides clear context on when to use this tool: to assign a zone set to one monitor, with effect on next drag. It also explains optional behavior (omit name, pass 'edge') and points to get_state for available names, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternative sibling tools.

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