osc_set

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries more burden. It discloses that this is a write operation, that guardrails still apply, and that system paths require confirmation. This adds contextual behavior beyond the annotations, though 'guardrails' remains somewhat vague and it doesn't detail success/failure or undoability.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause earns its place. The parenthetical lists value types efficiently, and the guidance about dedicated tools and confirm is compact. No wasted words.

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 simple write tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage preference, and confirm behavior. It doesn't mention error cases or address formatting, but those are minor for its complexity. Overall it is reasonably complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does for 'value' by explaining the expected types (floats, ints, text) and for 'confirm' by tying it to system paths. It doesn't elaborate on 'address' beyond the tool's name, but the address format is implied by the OSC context. This partial compensation meets the low-coverage need.

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 states a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('RAW OSC value'), and specifies the value types accepted (normalized floats, ints, text). It also signals its place among siblings with 'Prefer the dedicated tools,' distinguishing it from the specialized set_* tools without opening their schemas.

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?

'Prefer the dedicated tools' gives an explicit when-not direction, and 'system paths need confirm' clarifies one usage condition. It does not explicitly state 'use this only when no dedicated tool exists,' but the raw/fallback intent is strongly implied. Could be more explicit about selection criteria, but it provides clear guidance.

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