zwave_begin_exclusion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns immediately upon entering exclusion mode and requires the device to be put into exclusion/unpair mode to complete removal. This is valuable context beyond the empty schema.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose, non-blocking behavior, and next steps. It could mention prerequisites or state requirements but is adequate for a simple 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description need not add parameter details. The baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing more to convey.

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 puts the controller into exclusion mode to remove a node, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like zwave_begin_inclusion and zwave_stop_exclusion.

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 when to use the tool (to remove a node) and how to complete the process, including canceling with zwave_stop_exclusion. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites like controller idle state.

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