set_temperature

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it's a write operation ('Set'), supports multiple system types, and specifies that 'Changes take effect immediately', which is crucial for understanding impact. However, it does not cover aspects like error conditions, permissions needed, or rate limits, leaving some 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 front-loaded with the core action and efficiently covers key details in two sentences without any wasted words. Each sentence adds value: the first specifies the tool's function and system support, and the second clarifies the immediate effect, making it appropriately sized 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?

Given the tool's complexity (a write operation with 4 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description does a good job by explaining the action, system types, and immediate effect. However, it could be more complete by addressing potential side effects, error handling, or response format, which are important for a mutation tool without structured output documentation.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by clarifying that setpoint is for single-setpoint systems and setpoint_low/high are for heat pump systems, but this mostly reiterates schema details without providing additional syntax, constraints, or usage examples beyond what's in the schema.

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 verb ('Set') and resource ('temperature setpoint on a thermostat or zone'), specifying the exact action. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_temperature' (read vs. write) and 'set_temperature_offset' (setpoint vs. offset adjustment), making the purpose specific and 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?

The description implies usage by mentioning support for different system types (single vs. heat pump) and that changes take effect immediately, which provides some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_preset' or 'set_regulation_mode', and does not state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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