IDM Warmwasser-Sollwerte setzen

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

The EEPROM write-cycle warning adds significant behavioral context beyond what annotations provide (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true). It also discloses the return format ('JSON-Bestätigung') and the requirement for at least one parameter. However, the 'mit * markiert' reference is confusing because no asterisks are present on the listed parameters.

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 well-structured with a warning, parameter list, and args/returns section. The content is necessary and front-loaded, but the language is verbose and the 'mit * markiert' phrasing is distracting and unclear.

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 (nested parameters, EEPROM risk), the description adequately covers purpose, constraints, return value, and the critical write-cycle warning. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites beyond the parameter requirements, but the schema and annotations fill some gaps.

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 description lists the three parameter names with register numbers and labels, but does not explain units or ranges. The schema descriptions partially cover this, but with schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It adds the 'at least one' rule, but more detail on the meaning of 'Einschalttemperatur' vs 'Ausschalttemperatur' would be useful.

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 that the tool sets hot water setpoint temperature, switch-on and/or switch-off temperature ('Setzt Warmwasser-Solltemperatur, Ein- und/oder Ausschalttemperatur'). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling getter tools like idm_get_hot_water_status and other setters.

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 critical usage constraints: 'NICHT permanent oder zyklisch schreiben – nur bei Bedarf ändern' (do not write permanently or cyclically, only change when needed) and 'Mindestens einen der drei Parameter angeben' (at least one parameter must be specified). It clearly implies when to use this tool (for changing setpoints), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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