Call raw Domoticz API

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent already knows this is a high-impact operation. The description adds the requirement 'Requires confirm=True', which provides actionable behavioral context beyond the schema (the schema has default false). It does not contradict annotations and adds modest value.

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 two short sentences with zero fluff. The core purpose ('Raw API call') is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and a critical requirement. Every word earns its place.

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 raw fallback tool, the description is minimal but sufficient for an expert, especially with an output schema present. It does not explain the expansive power of the API or potential misuse beyond the confirm requirement, but the annotations already signal destructiveness. It's adequate but could warn more explicitly about the breadth of operations.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, but those descriptions are generic ('Domoticz command parameter', 'Additional Domoticz query parameters'). The description adds the semantic guidance that confirm must be true, which is valuable. However, it does not clarify the meaning of param or kwargs further, so it only marginally improves on 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 states a clear verb ('call') and resource ('raw Domoticz API'), distinguishing it as a generic fallback from the sibling-specific tools. It's more specific than a tautology, but it doesn't describe what kinds of operations it can perform beyond being a raw API call. The title reinforces the purpose.

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 explicitly says 'Use if dedicated tools fail', giving a clear condition for when this tool should be invoked. It implies the alternative (dedicated tools) but doesn't list them; the sibling list provides that context. It does not state explicit exclusions, but the fallback role is clear.

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