zwave_reinterview_node

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses async nature, potential delays, and error behavior. It does not explicitly state if the operation is destructive or read-only, but the context suggests it modifies state; overall transparency is good.

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 short paragraphs: first line states purpose, second adds behavioral details. Every sentence is informative, no fluff.

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?

While the description explains the process and errors, it does not mention the return value (likely nothing or a confirmation). Since there is no output schema, this omission reduces completeness for a fire-and-forget 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 description adds meaning to the sole parameter node_id by providing an example ('e.g. 5') and clarifying it's a Z-Wave node id. This adds value beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage.

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 re-runs a node's interview to refresh capabilities and values, using a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from siblings like zwave_node_info or zwave_rebuild_node_routes.

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?

Describes fire-and-forget behavior, background execution, delay for battery devices, and ValueError for unknown nodes. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the guidance is clear and practical.

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