set_dnd

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

Annotations already indicate mutability and destructiveness, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly says the tool 'Reads and returns the device's before/after state,' which informs the agent about side effects and return behavior beyond the raw annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core action, and includes the key behavioral detail about returning before/after state. Every sentence adds value with no redundant filler.

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 two-parameter tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is largely complete. It covers the operation scope and observable output. The only notable gap is lack of usage guidance relative to sibling tools, which is already penalized separately.

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%, but the description compensates by mapping 'enabled' to the enable/disable action, making the boolean parameter's meaning explicit. The schema also provides a helpful description for device_id ('Device ID returned by list_devices'), so both parameters are adequately semantically grounded.

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 uses a clear verb ('CHANGES') and specifies the exact resource and operation ('enable or disable Do Not Disturb for one device'). It distinguishes itself from sibling routing/forwarding tools by naming DND specifically, though 'THE SIPGATE ACCOUNT' is somewhat broad given the scope is a single device.

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 states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like set_forwarding or set_number_routing. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent decide between sibling tools.

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