Run HomeMatic Script

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

Beyond annotations (openWorldHint, destructiveHint), the description adds key behavioral traits: not idempotent, not auto-retried, and the separate confirm requirement for protected targets. No contradiction 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?

Three sentences, each adding unique value with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by critical behavioral and usage notes.

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 executing arbitrary scripts, the description covers safety (idempotency, confirm), usage scope, and distinguishes from siblings. No output schema exists, but return values are inherently unpredictable, so this is acceptable.

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 100%, providing baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful extra context for 'confirm' parameter, explaining why it must be true on every call for protected targets, which is valuable beyond the schema.

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 'Execute arbitrary HomeMatic Script on the CCU' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by stating it's for anything other tools don't cover.

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?

Provides explicit when-not (not idempotent, not auto-retried) and specifies that on protected targets every call needs confirm:true, with rationale about session unlock not applying. This gives clear guidance on when and how to use.

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