Set the scheduled water amount for a sprinkler zone by depth in millimeters or minutes. Use 9.5 mm as a typical summer day for turf grass.
Set the scheduled water amount for a zone. Pass water_depth_mm (the depth of water the zone should receive per watering day) or minutes. Example: 9.5 mm is a typical summer day for turf grass.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| minutes | No | ||
| zone_id | Yes | ||
| device_id | Yes | ||
| water_depth_mm | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never states whether this overwrites an existing schedule, whether the change takes effect immediately, what happens if both water_depth_mm and minutes are supplied, or what permissions/connectivity the device requires. Only the units semantics are disclosed.
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 purpose, then parameter guidance, then a concrete calibration example. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.
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 mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description covers the core meaning but leaves key operational questions open: mutual exclusivity of the two amount parameters, override behavior, and device/zone requirements. Adequate to start, incomplete for confident invocation.
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 must compensate: it usefully defines water_depth_mm as 'depth of water the zone should receive per watering day' and gives a concrete 9.5 mm example, plus hints that minutes is an alternative unit. But it does not resolve the either/or precedence between the two, does not mention they default to null, and says nothing about device_id or zone_id.
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?
Clear verb+resource ('Set the scheduled water amount for a zone'), and the word 'scheduled' meaningfully distinguishes it from the sibling water_zone, which implies immediate watering. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation must be inferred from the name alone.
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 phrase 'scheduled water amount' implicitly signals this configures a recurring schedule rather than triggering a one-off watering like water_zone, and 'per watering day' reinforces it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative for manual watering.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.