entities_set_value

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for transparency, but it only states the operation as a set, without disclosing whether it requires authentication, side effects (e.g., if the value is clamped), or what happens if the entity type is incorrect.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no redundancy. It is concise but could be structured to include more information without being verbose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity but no annotation context, the description is too brief. It does not cover typical constraints like value ranges, entity existence requirements, or return behavior (even though an output schema exists).

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%, yet the description adds no further details beyond the schema types. For example, it does not explain that entity_id must be the full entity ID format, or that value might have range constraints for climate temperature.

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 clearly states the action ('set value') and specifies the exact entity types it applies to ('input_number, number, or climate temperature'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like entities_turn_on or helpers_set_input_number.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as entities_turn_on for switches or helpers_set_input_number for input_number helpers. The description lacks context on prerequisites or conditions.

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