shelly_system_set_auth

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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint=true, but the description adds material behavior the annotation does not: the password is write-only, never returned, redacted in the audit log, and must be at least 12 characters. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before mutating credentials.

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 short lines with zero filler; the operation and its confirm gate are front-loaded, and the write-only caveat follows. Every sentence 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 destructive annotation plus the write-only/redaction notes cover the safety picture. Minor gaps remain: no explanation of the 'device' identifier or of any side effects such as dropped sessions after rotation.

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. It compensates well for two parameters (password ≥12 chars, confirm:true required) but says nothing about the required 'device' parameter's accepted form or identifier semantics, leaving a 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?

The description states a specific verb pair and resource ('Enable/rotate the device login password'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling tools like shelly_rpc_write or shelly_system_reboot. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

It states a hard prerequisite ('Requires confirm:true'), which is useful gating information. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over the generic shelly_rpc_write or shelly_rpc path, nor any warning about when not to rotate a password.

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