shelly_schedule_update

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

The annotation idempotentHint: true already signals idempotency. The description adds that the action is 'Audit-logged', which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., triggering other actions) or response behavior, so it adds only modest value.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences, no redundant information. However, it is too brief for the tool's complexity. Front-loads the core purpose but sacrifices necessary details. Still, conciseness is high.

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 5 parameters with no schema descriptions, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not specify which fields can be updated, the nature of the 'calls' parameter, or the effect of optional parameters. An output schema exists but is not referenced. For a complex update operation, this level of description is inadequate.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in the input schema). The description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (id, calls, device, enable, timespec) or their expected formats. For example, 'calls' is an array of objects with no further details, and 'timespec' is a string but not defined. The description adds no semantic value over the schema.

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 tool updates an existing schedule by id, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like shelly_schedule_create, shelly_schedule_delete, and shelly_schedule_list. The verb 'Update' and resource 'schedule' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (create, delete, list). There is no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or scenarios where the tool should not be used. The description is too brief to help an agent decide between it and sibling tools.

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