shelly_rpc_write

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the mandatory confirm:true gate, that calls are audit-logged, that read calls are rejected, and that destructive methods require a second gate params.i_understand_data_loss=true. The description is consistent with (and enriches) the annotation safety profile.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and gating requirement, then the rejection rule and the destructive-operation exception. Every clause earns its place.

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 no explanation, and the description covers gating, rejection, and the destructive override. The remaining gap is that device/method are left undefined despite 0% schema coverage, though shelly_list_methods and shelly_list_devices provide the discovery path.

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% for 4 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It explains confirm's required value and the params.i_understand_data_loss escape hatch, but never characterizes device or method (the two required params). Partial compensation for a documented-schema gap.

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 and resource: 'Call any mutating RPC method', and explicitly distinguishes itself from the read-path sibling shelly_rpc by declaring that read methods are rejected. An agent can route between shelly_rpc and shelly_rpc_write without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (mutating RPCs) and when-not (read methods, with the named alternative shelly_rpc). It also names the condition that triggers the elevated path: destructive methods like factory reset, wipe-all, reset-wifi.

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