set_rotary

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 important safety gate (non-zero values require explicit confirmation), which is real behavioral context. However it omits repeat-call semantics, what happens if confirm is false, connection prerequisites, and whether the value persists, leaving substantive gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and immediately qualifies the confirm requirement. No wasted text, though it is terse enough that some necessary detail is simply absent rather than trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed. For a device-mutating tool with no annotations, the description covers the core safety rule but omits prerequisites (e.g. connect_device first), level bounds, and failure/edge behavior.

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% across two parameters, so the description does all the work. It conveys that 'level' is rotation intensity and that 'confirm' is a boolean gate tied to non-zero levels, but adds no ranges, units, or bounds for 'level' or default behavior for 'confirm'.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource: setting the rotation intensity of the DK-META2 device, which distinguishes it from the sibling set_vibration and set_linear tools. It is clear about what is affected, though it does not explicitly contrast itself against stop_device or the other setter siblings.

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?

Provides one concrete usage condition: a non-zero level requires confirm=true, which is a genuine invocation rule an agent must honor. It offers no guidance on when to choose this over set_vibration/set_linear/stop_device or any prerequisite ordering.

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