Somneo Wecker Setzen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations lack: that unspecified fields are left untouched (partial update, consistent with idempotency) and that the device state is read back after the change.

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 operation and the partial-update rule, followed by a dense but scannable parameter reference. Every element carries information; only the 'slot' omission and slightly terse list formatting keep it from a 5.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with an output schema present, the description supplies the encoding details an agent needs (units, ranges, enumerations) plus partial-update and return semantics. It is nearly complete, with the unexplained required 'slot' as the main residual gap.

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 full burden, and it largely does: it documents formats and ranges for uhrzeit ('HH:MM'), tage examples, an (True/False), helligkeit 1-25, lichtdauer 1-60 min, lichttyp 0-3, tonquelle values, klang 0-10 and lautstaerke 1-25. The only gap is the required 'slot' parameter, which is never explained.

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 ('Einen bestehenden Wecker ändern'), and the word 'bestehenden' implicitly distinguishes it from somneo_wecker_anlegen (create) and somneo_wecker_loeschen (delete). An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 clarifies that this operates on an existing alarm and that only supplied fields are modified (partial update), which implies when to reach for it. However, it never explicitly names alternatives such as somneo_wecker_schalten for simple toggling or states when-not to use this tool, leaving routing to inference.

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