zwave_set_node_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool raises ValueError for unknown node IDs, a key behavioral detail. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., events triggered, persistence guarantees) or confirm idempotency, leaving minor gaps.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words. It uses a clear structure: purpose statement, error condition note, then parameters. 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?

For a simple setter with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, error behavior, and parameter meanings. Minor missing details (e.g., name constraints, return behavior) are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: node_id is 'The Z-Wave node id, e.g. 5' and name is 'The new name for the node'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions. An example for node_id further aids understanding.

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 verb ('Set') and the resource ('a node's friendly name'), unambiguously identifying the tool's action. It differentiates from siblings like zwave_set_config_parameter and zwave_set_node_location by specifying the attribute being modified.

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 includes a condition for when the tool raises a ValueError (unknown node id), which helps with error handling. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like zwave_set_node_location or zwave_set_config_parameter, and does not mention prerequisites or context.

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