IDM Externe Anforderung setzen

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

The description reveals critical behavioral traits beyond the annotations: the registers must be written cyclically and the demand is not retained after a restart. This is important operational context not captured by the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It also states the return type (JSON confirmation). The description does not contradict any 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?

The description is compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a prominent warning about cyclic writes, a usage list mapping flags to registers, and a clear Args/Returns section. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or excessive length.

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 moderate complexity (three configurable flags, cyclic-write requirement, non-persistent behavior), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, usage warnings, parameter meanings, and return value. The input schema and output schema presence fill any remaining gaps, making this description complete for an AI agent.

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 input schema already includes per-parameter descriptions with register numbers and the 'ZYKLISCH schreiben!' warning. The description adds value by clarifying the boolean semantics: 'True=Ein, False=Aus' and grouping them under the 'params' object. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage in the top-level description and reinforces the register mappings.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Setzt externe Heiz-, Kühl- und/oder Warmwasseranforderungen' (sets external heating, cooling, and/or hot water demands). It maps each demand to a specific register (1710, 1711, 1712), which distinguishes it from sibling getter tools and other setters like idm_set_system_mode. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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?

Provides strong usage guidance by stating that the registers MUST be written cyclically (e.g., every 30 seconds) to ensure the demand is reapplied after a heat pump restart. It also explains the meaning of each parameter flag. However, it does not explicitly state when-not to use this tool or mention alternatives, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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