zwave_set_config_parameter

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It states the tool writes a configuration parameter, returns ACCEPTED/QUEUED status, raises ValueError for unknown node, and mentions partial writes via bitmask. However, it does not mention potential side effects like node re-interview or reboot requirements.

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 well-structured with a short introductory line, example, and numbered Args list. It is front-loaded with the core action. Minor redundancy in explaining bitmask twice (first in prose, then in Args) but overall efficient.

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 no output schema, the description covers return value (ACCEPTED/QUEUED) and error case. It hints at the prerequisite of using zwave_node_config to find parameter numbers. Among many sibling tools, it clearly targets manufacturer configuration parameters. Could mention that the node must be included in the network.

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%, but the description thoroughly explains each parameter: node_id is the Z-Wave node id, parameter is the parameter number (from zwave_node_config's property), value is the new integer value, and bitmask is the optional partial-parameter bit mask (property_key). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only information.

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 it sets a node's manufacturer configuration parameter, specifying the parameter number from zwave_node_config, optional bitmask for partial writes, and return status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zwave_set_value and zwave_node_config.

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 implies usage by referencing zwave_node_config for parameter numbers, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like zwave_set_value or how to handle prerequisites. No exclusions or contrast with siblings.

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