IDM Betriebsart setzen

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the EEPROM write-cycle limitation, the explicit warning against permanent/cyclic writes, and the register address. These are critical behavioral traits not visible from the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), making the tool's side effects and constraints transparent.

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 clear action sentence, a warning block, a value list, and a parameter/return summary. Every sentence earns its place, and the use of line breaks improves readability without unnecessary verbiage.

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 setter with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, the valid values, the critical write-cycle caution, and the return format. No important context is missing, and it complements the annotations and schema rather than repeating them.

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?

Despite the schema's modus description, the context signal indicates 0% schema description coverage. The description fully compensates by listing each valid value (0,1,2,4,5) with its meaning, which is exactly the semantic mapping needed for safe and correct invocation. This adds significant value beyond the raw integer constraints.

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 the action ('Setzt die Betriebsart') and the specific resource ('IDM-Gesamtsystems'), with the register (1005) and EEPROM note. It is distinct from sibling getters and other setter tools like set_hot_water_setpoints or set_smart_grid.

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 implies when to use the tool (to set system operating mode) and provides a caution against frequent writes, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state 'use this instead of X'. The warning is useful usage guidance, but the lack of explicit alternative differentiation keeps it at a minimum-viable level.

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