System Set Reduce Motion

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotations. It does not disclose that the tool changes system accessibility state, whether the change persists, or what side effects might occur. With only generic annotations and no readOnlyHint, the description leaves an agent without meaningful behavioral transparency.

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 short but contains only generic boilerplate like 'Delegated Apple domain tool' and 'exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP'. These words do not earn their place because they contribute no actionable information. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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?

Even though the tool is simple with one boolean parameter, the description is not complete enough to invoke it correctly with confidence. It does not state what Reduce Motion is, what the boolean does, or how this relates to sibling system settings tools. An agent would have to rely on naming conventions and external knowledge.

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 schema has one required boolean parameter 'enabled' with 0% schema description coverage, yet the description provides no explanation of what 'enabled' controls. The description does not compensate for the schema gap at all, leaving the parameter semantics entirely to inference from the tool name.

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 only restates the tool name as 'Delegated Apple domain tool system_set_reduce_motion' and does not say what the tool does. It fails to explain that it sets the Reduce Motion accessibility setting or toggles it via the 'enabled' parameter. This is essentially a tautology of the title and name.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as system_set_increase_contrast or system_set_reduce_transparency. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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