set_device_parameters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it documents that multiple values are applied at once, that raw values are non-linear and should be verified against the returned 'display', how switch parameters and bypass are expressed, and how to reach devices inside racks. It omits permission/auth requirements, error behavior, and reversibility.

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?

Dense, front-loaded prose with inline examples that each earn their place; no filler sentences. The rack note and display-verification caveat are placed at the end appropriately.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the hard part (values semantics, switches, racks, non-linear units) but leaves the addressing parameters (kind, track_index, device_index) undocumented, which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 ably explains the nested 'values' object, key forms (names or string indexes), and the chain/chain_device rack parameters, but leaves 'kind' (track/return/master), 'track_index', and 'device_index' entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Set several parameters at once') and clarifies the batch nature, which naturally distinguishes it from the single-parameter sibling set_parameter_real and the read-side get_device_parameters. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it falls just short of the top mark.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: batching, raw-number-vs-option-name value forms, bypass via {"Device On": 0}, and rack pathing via chain + chain_device. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-instead-of guidance and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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