set_device_state

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context with 'never retry an uncertain LAN write via Cloud', clarifying the one-shot nature and retry policy beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single, short sentence that conveys the core purpose and a critical behavioral note. No wasted words; front-loaded with the action.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no enums) but has an output schema and nested objects. The description covers the main behavior and retry policy, but lacks details about the 'changes' parameter, prerequisites (e.g., device must exist), and expected outcomes. Basic but missing some context.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'AC desired state' but does not define the 'changes' object or its allowed keys. The 'device_id' is also not explained. This leaves the agent with insufficient information for correct invocation.

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 action ('Set AC desired state') and the resource ('AC desired state'), using a specific verb. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (all reads or diagnostics) by indicating a state-setting operation.

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 instruction 'never retry an uncertain LAN write via Cloud' provides a clear behavioral guideline for when to avoid retrying. It implies usage for setting state without retry, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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