shelly_schedule_update

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

The only annotation is idempotentHint=true; the description adds a useful behavioral trait ('Audit-logged'). However, it omits key mutation semantics: whether unspecified fields are preserved (partial update), the interpretation of nullable fields (calls/enable/timespec defaulting to null), and any permission requirements. With a low annotation bar the added audit context earns partial credit, but the gaps keep it at a 3.

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 short front-loaded sentences with no padding, and 'Audit-logged' earns its place as a behavioral signal. It is appropriately terse, though a touch more substance would not have hurt.

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, but for a 5-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage the description is too sparse: it does not explain updatable fields, partial-vs-full update behavior, or null handling. An agent would likely need to guess.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only clarifies the 'id' parameter. The four other parameters (device, calls, enable, timespec) and their null-default semantics are undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Update fields of an existing schedule') and scopes it 'by id', so the agent knows it targets an existing schedule rather than creating one. It does not explicitly name/contrast the sibling operations (schedule_create, schedule_delete), so it falls just short of a 5.

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 routing to alternatives such as shelly_schedule_create or shelly_schedule_delete. The agent must infer that this is the mutation path for an existing schedule purely from the name.

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