set_setpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that writes change real HVAC behavior and are gated, which is important behavioral context. However, it does not detail success/error responses or potential side effects.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and follows with critical constraints, making it 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?

The tool has 3 required parameters and no output schema. The description lacks details on return values, error handling, and parameter formats, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 only 33% (only 'value' has a minimal description: 'Analog or binary BACnet point value'). The description adds no additional meaning for 'equipment_id' or 'point_name', failing to compensate for low schema coverage.

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 ('Write a new setpoint value to equipment') and the resource ('equipment'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'read_point' (read vs. write) and 'list_equipment' (list vs. write).

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 explains that writes are gated by 'TRANE_ALLOW_SETPOINT_WRITE=true' and that they change real HVAC behavior, implying writes require explicit authorization. While it does not list alternatives, the context is clear for when to use this tool.

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