water_zone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does so well: it discloses the ~2 minute startup delay, that a scheduleId is returned for stopping the run, and that allow_conflicts=false makes the call fail when the device is already scheduled to water. Auth/permission behavior is not mentioned, but the operational traits are unusually well surfaced.

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?

Roughly four sentences, front-loaded with the imperative action, then parameters, timing, return value, and the conflict rule. Every sentence adds information with no filler.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, parameter meaning, timing behavior, return identifier, and the conflict-failure case. Only the permissible combination of water_depth_mm vs minutes and any permission requirements remain unstated.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains water_depth_mm (with an example range 0.5-10), minutes as runtime, and the semantics of allow_conflicts. device_id and zone_id are left implicit and the 'or' between water_depth_mm/minutes is not clarified as mutually exclusive, keeping it short of a 5.

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 and resource ('START WATERING a zone now, manually'), with emphasis that clearly separates it from scheduling siblings like set_zone_watering and from stop_watering. 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?

The word 'manually'/'now' frames this as the immediate-run option versus the scheduled set_zone_watering sibling, and it explains the allow_conflicts failure condition. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool for scheduled watering, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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