set_temperature_setpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description should carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it sets a temperature setpoint, implying a write operation, but does not mention authorization requirements, side effects, or what happens on success/failure. The presence of an output schema partially mitigates this, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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 concise and uses an 'Args:' section for structured parameter info. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Minor room for improvement: it could be even more compact without losing clarity.

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 (3 parameters, 1 required) and the lack of annotations, the description adequately covers parameters but misses broader context like when to use idx vs name, what happens if both are null, or range restrictions for setpoint. The presence of an output schema helps cover return values, but the description alone is not fully complete.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% schema_description_coverage), but the tool description compensates by explaining all three parameters: setpoint as 'Target temperature in Celsius', idx as 'Device index', and name as 'Device name'. The example for setpoint adds clarity. However, it doesn't explain how idx and name are used for device identification or that they are optional.

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 that the tool sets the temperature setpoint for a thermostat, specifying the verb 'set' and the resource 'temperature setpoint'. The example value for setpoint clarifies usage. The name itself distinguishes from sibling tools like set_color_brightness or set_dimmer_level.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other device control tools). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the need to specify idx or name to identify the device, or when not to use it.

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