zont_send_custom_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutating action on a physical device but never states whether the command is reversible, what authorization is needed, or whether the command must be pre-configured before this call will succeed beyond a passing mention.

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?

Front-loads the purpose sentence, then supplies prerequisite context, then the parameter notes — no filler. The per-parameter lines are slightly redundant given the schema but keep the block readable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and the description does cover purpose plus the origin of command_id. For an unannotated mutation tool targeting physical hardware, it is still thin on side effects and failure conditions.

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 compensate, and it does document both parameters. However, 'device_id: ID устройства' merely restates the field name; only command_id adds real meaning by pointing to custom_controls as its source.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('send a custom command to a device') and names the supported device families (ZTC-7xx, Mega SX), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling zont_send_z3k_command, but 'custom command defined in the configuration utility' provides enough specificity to distinguish intent.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite and discovery path: commands come from the device's custom_controls setting, and points the agent at zont_list_devices to obtain the ID. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over zont_send_z3k_command, so no exclusions or alternatives are given.

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