set_device_enabled

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

Annotations only provide 'destructiveHint: false'. The description implies a state change but does not disclose that this is a write operation, whether it is reversible, or any side effects on device state. For a mutation tool with minimal annotation support, more behavioral context is needed.

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 concise at one sentence, but it is too brief. It front-loads the action but lacks structure or additional details. Could be improved with a second sentence about parameters or behavior.

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?

Given three parameters, no schema coverage, and an output schema existing, the description is incomplete. It does not explain valid indices, return value, or error conditions. A simple toggle tool still benefits from minimal completeness.

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 0%, yet the description provides no explanation for the three parameters. It does not clarify that 'enabled' likely means true=enable, false=bypass, or what track_index and device_index refer to. The description adds no value 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 'Enable or bypass a device on a track' clearly states the action (enable/bypass) and resource (device on a track). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_device_parameter' which modifies parameter values, and 'set_track_mute' which mutes the entire track.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_device_parameter' or 'set_track_mute'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when bypassing vs enabling is appropriate.

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