set_zone_enabled

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavioral context: disabled zones are skipped by schedules while manual watering remains possible. It omits other traits an agent would want, such as whether the change is reversible (implied by 'enable or disable'), idempotency, or permission requirements.

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 sentences with the core action front-loaded and the behavioral caveat immediately after. No filler, no repetition of the tool 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?

For a 3-required-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the effect but leaves the parameter contract entirely to the schema, which documents nothing. It is adequate as a conceptual summary but not complete enough to call the tool confidently without inspecting the schema.

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?

All three parameters (device_id, zone_id, enabled) have 0% schema description coverage, so the schema contributes nothing. The description implies the existence of an on/off flag via 'enable or disable' but never maps it to the boolean 'enabled' parameter or explains the identifiers, leaving the parameters effectively undocumented.

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 pair (enable/disable) and resource (zone), so an agent can distinguish it from set_zone_watering and set_routine_enabled by resource alone. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling handles watering vs. enabling, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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 second sentence explains the consequence of disabling (schedules skip the zone) and clarifies that manual watering is still allowed, which implies when the setting matters. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance, such as when to disable a zone rather than delete it or stop its watering.

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