Somneo Wecker Schalten

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 genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: turned-off alarms stay off and there is no automatic re-activation. That state-persistence detail is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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?

Two tight sentences: the core action first, then the example, then the caveat. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded. Slightly dense (example and caveat run together) but well front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the toggle semantics, a use scenario, and the persistence caveat. The main remaining gap is the meaning/format of the 'slots' array, which is left unexplained.

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%, so the description must carry the load for both required params. It clarifies that 'an' is the on/off toggle and hints that 'slots' selects which alarms ('alle Werktags-Wecker'), but gives no detail on the slot integer format or identifier meaning. It only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: turning alarms (Wecker) on or off (ein-/ausschalten). This clearly separates it from siblings like somneo_wecker_setzen (set) and somneo_wecker_anlegen (create), since it is a toggle operation. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Provides a concrete usage scenario ('für Urlaub alle Werktags-Wecker aus und danach wieder an'), which implies the intended context. However, it never states when to prefer this over somneo_wecker_setzen or other siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied through the example rather than stated.

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