autoset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the operation changes settings substantially, that previous settings are lost, that the first call does not execute, and that the changed settings are returned in state afterward.

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 three sentences with each sentence earning its place: purpose, destructive consequence, confirmation workflow, and resulting state. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary detail.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential agent-facing facts: what changes, what is lost, the required confirmation flow, and what is returned. Nothing critical is missing 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?

The only parameter, confirm_token, has no schema description, but the description fully explains its purpose and lifecycle: the first call returns a token, and the second call uses it to confirm execution. This adds meaning far beyond the raw schema, which only shows a nullable string with a null default.

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 identifies the action as 'Run Auto Setup (autoscale)' and states that it auto-adjusts vertical scale, timebase, and trigger. This distinguishes it from manual sibling tools like configure_timebase and configure_trigger by emphasizing that settings are changed together and previous settings are lost.

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 gives explicit procedural guidance: call once to get a confirm_token, ask the human user whether to proceed, then call again with that token. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use auto-setup, but the workflow is clear and actionable.

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