shelly_script_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: it returns ``was_running`` and the call is audit-logged. However, it omits whether starting an already-running script errors, permission requirements, and reversibility, leaving notable behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 terse sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the return value, then the audit note. Every clause carries information; nothing is wasted.

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 spelled out. Still, with 0% schema coverage the unexplained `device` parameter and the absence of error/idempotency behavior leave the definition only minimally adequate for a mutating tool.

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 two parameters. The phrase "by ``id``" hints that id identifies the target script, but the required `device` parameter is never explained, and there is no format or constraint detail for either param, so the description only partially compensates.

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 ("Start") and resource ("a script"), identified by id, so the action is unambiguous. It is implicitly distinct from shelly_script_stop, but it never names that sibling or any alternative, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as shelly_script_run vs shelly_script_eval. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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