return_to_dock

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself — it does not say whether an in-progress cleaning job is interrupted, what happens if the vacuum is already docked, or whether the call blocks until docked. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is a thin but non-contradictory addition.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and the parameter-sourcing hint second. Nothing extraneous; every sentence 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the one required parameter is sourced. For a simple state-change command this is nearly complete; only edge-case behavior (already docked, mid-cleaning) is absent.

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 0% — the single parameter 'duid' is documented only as a bare string with no description. The description compensates by naming the source tool (list_devices) for the value, which is meaningful semantics an agent could not infer from the schema alone.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send the vacuum back to its charging dock') that is immediately distinguishable from siblings like start_cleaning, pause_cleaning, and get_status. No ambiguity about what action is performed.

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?

Provides the key prerequisite by telling the agent where to source the required identifier ('Get duid from list_devices'), which is a concrete call-ordering hint. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., vs. pause_cleaning) or any preconditions, so it is clear context but not full routing guidance.

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