set_preset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Set' operation (implying mutation) and that presets apply 'predefined temperature settings and behaviors,' but lacks critical details: required permissions, whether changes are reversible, effects on other settings, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core action with examples, and the second explains what presets do. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with two parameters.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (mutation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter examples but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and output information. It meets the bare minimum for understanding what the tool does but leaves the agent guessing about practical application.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (location_id and preset). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it provides examples of preset values ('home, away, sleep, vacation') and clarifies that location_id targets 'a thermostat or zone,' but doesn't explain parameter interactions or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 preset mode') and target resource ('on a thermostat or zone'), with examples of preset values. It distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like set_temperature or set_dhw_mode by focusing on predefined behavior modes rather than direct temperature control. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, missing some differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_temperature or set_regulation_mode. It mentions that presets apply 'predefined temperature settings and behaviors' but doesn't clarify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent receives no help in choosing between this and other control tools.

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