ha_set_climate_temperature

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain that this is a mutating operation requiring user confirmation (implied by the 'confirm' parameter), nor does it mention any side effects, auth requirements, reversibility, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It front-loads the purpose but omits essential operational details. This is not conciseness that earns its place; it is truncation that undermines usability.

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 tool with 3 required parameters, zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to address the 'confirm' parameter, usage context, or expected outcomes. An agent has no way to correctly invoke this tool based solely on the provided information.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameter meanings, but it does not. It only mentions the overall action without clarifying 'entity_id', 'temperature' (e.g., units, range), or 'confirm' (what value to pass, why it exists). The description adds no value beyond what the parameter names alone imply.

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 states a specific verb ('Establece' = sets) and resource ('temperatura objetivo de una entidad climate' = target temperature of a climate entity). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like ha_turn_on, ha_turn_off, and ha_get_entity, which handle different aspects of entity control.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or mention any other tool (e.g., ha_call_service) that could be an alternative. The description is solely a purpose statement with no usage context.

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