shelly_kvs_set

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

Annotations only supply idempotentHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden. 'Audit-logged' is genuine added context beyond the annotation, but it omits overwrite semantics for existing keys, required permissions/auth, and any rate or size limits.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no wasted words. The trailing 'Audit-logged' fragment is terse but functional rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple setter. Still, with zero schema coverage and only an idempotency annotation, the undocumented 'device' parameter and absent overwrite/permission notes leave meaningful 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across three required parameters. The description clarifies that the value is JSON, partially covering 'key' and 'value', but the required 'device' parameter is never mentioned or explained anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb (Set) and resource (KVS key) with the value format (JSON), which distinguishes it from the sibling get/delete/list KVS tools. It does not, however, explicitly name those siblings or contrast scope with them.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as shelly_rpc_write or the other shelly_kvs_* tools. The agent must infer usage purely from the verb.

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