shelly_cover_move

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

The description discloses that the tool moves a cover, returns a CoverState, and is audit-logged. It does not mention error behavior, idempotency, or permissions, but the core behavior is well-communicated.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no irrelevant information.

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 simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description covers most necessary context: action/position modes, return type, and audit logging. Missing explanation of device or channel is a minor gap.

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 adds meaning for action (open|close|stop) and position (0-100) but does not explain device or channel. With 0% schema coverage, this is partially helpful but incomplete for all parameters.

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 explicitly states the tool moves a roller/cover with action (open/close/stop) or position (0-100). It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on switches, lights, scripts, etc., making its purpose very 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?

The description specifies how to use the tool (choose action or position) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or what scenarios are unsupported. However, given no alternative cover tool, the implied usage is sufficient.

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