set_live_tracking

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the trade-off of more battery usage, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not describe what happens when toggling (e.g., delay, effect on other features) or error conditions. Still above average.

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 and a parameter list. Front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence provides necessary information. No fluff.

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 toggle with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, the parameters, and a key trade-off. Missing potential return value or error handling, but overall adequate.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains that device_id comes from list_pets and active means True to turn on, False to turn off. This adds value beyond the schema's basic types. Could be improved by noting validation or default behavior.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'turn on or off' and the resource 'live tracking mode'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_tracker_status, get_pet_location, etc., which are for reading rather than modifying state.

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?

Implied usage: to enable or disable live tracking. No explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., checking current status with get_tracker_status first) or when-not-to-use (e.g., if battery is low). Lacks guidance on prerequisites or edge cases.

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