z2m_configure_reporting

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

Adds significant context beyond annotations: battery devices must be woken immediately, not all devices support the command, and setting maximum_report_interval to 65535 disables reporting. It also explains the trade-off between responsiveness and battery life. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Five sentences, each delivering specific value: purpose, motivation, special value, device caveat, and alternatives. Front-loaded with the core verb and resource, with no wasted words.

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?

Covers key operational constraints (battery wake-up, device support, alternatives) and the schema documents all parameters. With no output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema—it merely reiterates the 65535 behavior already in the schema's maximum_report_interval description.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Configure how often a device reports an attribute.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tool z2m_configure_device by explicitly mentioning 'one attribute' versus 'whole default configuration'.

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?

Explicitly names alternatives: 'Use z2m_get_device to see existing configured_reportings, and z2m_configure_device to re-run the whole default configuration instead of one attribute.' Also provides practical when-to-use guidance with battery wake-up and device support caveats.

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