Control blinds

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

Annotations already convey that the tool is not read-only, is destructive, and is idempotent, so the description carries a low bar. Yet it adds no behavioral context beyond restating the command values already present in the schema pattern, and it does not describe physical movement, side effects, or what 'Stop' does. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not enrich them.

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 extremely terse and front-loaded, with no filler or redundant explanation. It loses the fifth point because the fragments add little beyond what the schema already provides and omit the critical identifier requirement.

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?

Both idx and name are optional in the schema, and the description never states that at least one identifier must be supplied; an agent could attempt to invoke the tool with only command and fail. The description also does not explain the operational context of controlling blinds (e.g., physical motion, stopping mid-travel), leaving the annotations and schema to carry nearly the full burden.

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 baseline is 3. The description's 'Preferred: idx' merely restates the schema's own note that idx is 'preferred over name when known', adding no new semantic meaning. The command list likewise duplicates the schema's command description and pattern.

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 title 'Control blinds' plus the explicit command list 'Open'/'Close'/'Stop' makes it clear the tool operates blinds. It is distinguishable from sibling switch/dimmer/API tools because those handle different resources or use different action verbs. However, the description is a fragment rather than a full statement of the tool's purpose, so it falls short of a 5.

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 offers no guidance on when to select this tool over alternatives; it only says 'Preferred: idx', which is a parameter preference, not a tool-selection rule. With many sibling control tools, the absence of any when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is a clear gap.

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