Set System Name

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the name is visible in network discovery and the Homey app, informing the agent of the impact of the change. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides additional value beyond the safety profile.

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 that front-loads the action and includes only relevant context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple one-parameter setter with annotations and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and the effect of the parameter. It could mention return values or permission requirements, but given the tool's simplicity, it is complete enough. Score 4 as it is not exhaustive but adequate.

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 100%, with the 'name' parameter described as 'New system name'. The description reinforces that the parameter sets the system name and adds visibility context, but does not add new parameter-level details beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies given high 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 ('Set the Homey system name') and the resource affected, with context about where the name is visible (network discovery and the Homey app). This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which handle system name changes.

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 implies the use case (renaming the Homey system) and adds context about visibility, which helps the agent decide when to use this tool. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but no direct alternatives exist among the sibling tools. Clear context without explicit exclusion earns a 4.

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