Set channel intensity

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral constraints: the effective ceiling DGLAB_MAX_INTENSITY=30, the 5-step increase limit, and that reductions and 0 are always allowed. This is valuable operational detail consistent with the idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false 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?

Three concise sentences with no filler. The core operation is stated first, followed by the constraints. Every sentence earns its place.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus schema cover the key invocation details: channel selection, target semantics, caps, and step limits. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly noting when to prefer dglab_adjust_intensity, but this is not essential for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning not present in the schema: the effective ceiling, the step increment rule, and the absolute-target semantics. The schema only provides min/max, so this is a meaningful supplement.

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 action ('Set'), the resource ('one output channel (A or B)'), and the specific semantics ('absolute target on the 0-200 scale'). This inherently distinguishes it from sibling dglab_adjust_intensity, which implies relative adjustment.

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 usage context: absolute target setting, the 0-200 scale, the effective ceiling, and the step rule for increases. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like dglab_adjust_intensity for relative changes, but the 'absolute' phrasing gives enough context for most agents.

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