Set cover position

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying service call (cover.set_cover_position) and the exact payload shape, which is useful context beyond the structured fields. The stated return value is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then usage and return in short labeled lines. The inline payload block duplicates the schema's parameter names exactly, which is mild redundancy rather than waste.

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?

With annotations covering safety/idempotency, full schema coverage, and an output schema for return values, the description supplies the remaining when-to-use context. The only gap is not addressing the closely related tilt sibling, which would help disambiguation.

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 100% and both parameters, including the 0-100 range for position, are fully documented in the schema. The description merely restates the payload keys without adding format or edge-case semantics, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 (set) and resource (cover/blind/shutter) with the exact operation (specific open position), and clarifies the distinction from full open/close. It does not, however, name or differentiate itself from the adjacent services_set_cover_tilt sibling, so an agent must infer scope 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?

"Use when: moving a cover to a specific percentage rather than fully open/closed" gives a clear positive selection condition. It stops short of naming an alternative tool (e.g. set_cover_tilt) for the when-not case, so routing against the close sibling relies on inference.

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