z2m_set_device_options

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

Annotations already indicate mutation and idempotence, but the description adds crucial behavioral detail: options are merged (not replaced), persist in the Zigbee2MQTT configuration, and the response reports whether a bridge restart is required. This goes well beyond annotation hints and provides meaningful operational transparency.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying essential information: purpose, merge/persistence behavior, prerequisite lookup, and alternative tool guidance. No fluff, perfectly front-loaded, and easy to parse.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: prerequisites, alternative tools, merge semantics, persistence, and return-value meaning (restart required). For a mutation tool with two parameters, this is thorough and self-sufficient.

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 already covers both parameters (device and options) with 100% coverage. The description enriches this by providing a concrete JSON example for the options object and explicitly clarifying the merge semantics, which adds practical meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 opens with 'Change Zigbee2MQTT device options' and lists example option names (transition, retain, debounce, etc.), clearly defining a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from z2m_set_state and z2m_set_bridge_options, making the unique purpose immediately apparent.

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 instructs users to call z2m_get_device first to inspect settable_options, and explains when to use z2m_set_state (change what a device is doing) and z2m_set_bridge_options (bridge-wide settings). This provides clear, actionable usage guidance and differentiates the tool from its siblings.

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