setDeviceMode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions setting parameters but doesn't clarify if this is a write operation, what permissions are needed, whether changes are reversible, or any side effects like device state changes. This is inadequate for a tool with multiple parameters and nested objects.

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 a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. However, it lacks detail that would enhance clarity, making it somewhat under-specified rather than optimally concise for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter interactions, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly without relying heavily on the schema.

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 50%, with only some parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain the purpose of modes like 'exploration' or 'testAuthoring,' or how parameters interact. For a tool with 4 parameters and nested objects, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 states the tool 'Set parameters for a particular device in a given mode,' which provides a general purpose (setting device parameters) but is vague about what specific modes or parameters are involved. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'setActiveDevice' or 'resetConfig,' which also involve device settings, leaving ambiguity about its unique role.

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. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the device must be active or in a specific state, and doesn't mention any sibling tools as alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the input schema alone.

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