Set orientation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the Android-only platform limitation and lists all orientation options. It does not detail side effects or error conditions, but for a simple setter the core behavioral traits are adequately conveyed.

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, efficient sentence that leads with the action and resource, then lists the values and the platform caveat. Every word adds value, with no redundant phrasing.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, acceptable values, and platform constraints. It could mention the effect on the device or return state, but the tool's simplicity makes the description largely 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?

The schema already documents device_id with examples, and orientation has a self-explanatory enum. The description reinforces the allowed values and adds the Android-only context, but it does not provide significant additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('device orientation'), and enumerates the exact allowed values. This distinguishes it from sibling 'set_*' tools by focusing on orientation, and the platform note ('Android only') adds further specificity.

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 when-to-use guidance for Android devices and explicitly states an alternative for iOS simulators ('must be rotated via the Simulator menu'). While it doesn't contrast with other 'set_*' tools, the platform exclusion is a strong usage signal.

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