meiju_control

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: membership and fresh-state pre-checks, a single write followed by independent readback, no auto-retry on uncertain outcomes, and the caveat that a matching cloud readback does not prove physical execution. This meaningfully enriches the annotated non-idempotent, open-world mutation profile.

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 core action and the at-least-one-setting constraint are front-loaded, then each subsequent sentence delivers a distinct operational rule with no filler. Dense but every clause 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?

For a non-idempotent mutation tool with an output schema present, the description supplies all the missing context an agent needs: preconditions, write/readback protocol, retry policy, and the limits of cloud-confirmed success. Nothing essential is left ambiguous.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well: it clarifies power as an explicit boolean, the 17–30°C / 0.5°C temperature policy, the cross-field rule that mode/fan/temperature do not enable power, and the require-at-least-one-setting constraint. It leaves device_id semantics and the mode/fan option meanings to the schema's enums.

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 precise verb+resource+scope: 'Change only requested fields on an account-owned AC', which pins partial-update semantics and the ownership constraint. This cleanly separates it from every sibling (login/logout/list_devices/get_status/get_capabilities), none of which mutate device state.

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?

Gives clear operational context: at least one setting is required, power is an explicit boolean, and mode/fan/temperature never implicitly turn power on. It does not, however, name or route away from any sibling tool (e.g. when to read state first via meiju_get_status), so the when-not guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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