Set appearance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a state change ('switch') but does not mention side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, error behavior, or return values. It is a minimal statement typical of a simple setter but lacks richer context.

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 sentence of 9 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no fluff or redundant information, earning the highest score for conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple (2 required params, one with enum), and the description plus schema provide enough to select and invoke it correctly. It lacks usage guidance and behavioral caveats, but given the simplicity, it is adequately complete for a basic setter tool.

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 50%: device_id is described, appearance has only an enum. The description adds some context by clarifying that 'appearance' refers to light/dark system mode, but it largely duplicates the enum values. It does not add detail for device_id, so the added value is marginal.

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 action ('Switch'), the resource ('system appearance'), and the scope ('between light and dark mode'). It unambiguously distinguishes this tool from sibling set_* tools (e.g., set_orientation, set_locale) by focusing on appearance.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., using list_devices to obtain device_id) or any context about device state. The agent is left to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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