wem_get_writable_parameters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does well to disclose the return shape (current values, min/max ranges, enum options) and implies a non-mutating read via 'get', but says nothing about prerequisites, whether device state/busy state matters, or error behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the scoping qualifier and the return content. No filler, though the parenthetical duplicates the word 'writable' already present in the name.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming exactly what the response contains (values, min/max, enum options). With parameters fully covered by the schema, this is close to complete for a simple read tool; only permissions/prerequisites are unaddressed.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented; the description adds nothing about deviceId, moduleIndex, or moduleType, including how to discover a valid moduleType or moduleIndex. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (get) and a precisely scoped resource (only writable parameters of a module), with a parenthetical clarifying what 'writable' means. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the broader parameter-reading siblings by the word 'only', though it never names wem_get_parameters or wem_read_parameters directly.

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?

'Useful to see what can be adjusted' implies a use case but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the sibling tools that also read parameters (wem_get_parameters, wem_read_parameters, wem_get_parameter_meta). The agent must infer the routing itself.

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