esphome_write_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses validation of YAML syntax, support for special tags, and file creation behavior. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior, error handling on validation failure, or return format.

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 sentences with no redundancy. First sentence immediately states verb and resource, followed by behavior and edge-case details. Efficient and well-structured.

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 simple parameters and no nested objects, the description covers core aspects: purpose, location, validation, tag support, and creation. Missing details on overwrite and error responses, but overall adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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% but parameters are basic strings. The description adds context about the file path (/config/esphome/) but does not clarify what 'name' represents (e.g., device name vs filename) or if '.yaml' extension is needed. Minimal added value over schema.

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 verb 'Write' and the resource 'ESPHome device YAML config', with a specific path '/config/esphome/'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'esphome_validate_config' and 'esphome_get_config' by focusing on writing.

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 description provides context: writes to a specific directory, validates YAML, supports custom tags, and creates files. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, but the purpose is clear among esphome siblings.

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