send_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the command is transient (does not change saved config) but still affects the device. It also clearly explains the default dry_run behavior and how to override it, providing essential behavioral context for a potentially destructive action.

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 only three sentences, each adding value. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides behavioral guidance, and the third gives the HTTP method and body structure. No unnecessary 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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the key aspects: one-off nature, transience, dry_run default, and the API call. However, it fails to mention the 'host' parameter, which is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a command-sending tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the device, command, params, and dry_run parameters, and adds context about the API endpoint (PUT /entities/{id}/command). However, it does not describe the 'host' parameter at all, leaving one parameter undocumented.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fire' and identifies the resource as 'a device (entity)'. It clearly states the action as sending a one-off command, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_device_commands' that only list commands. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explains that the tool defaults to dry_run=true for safety and instructs to set dry_run=false to actually send. This provides clear guidance on when to use the dry run vs. actual execution. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives.

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