zont_send_z3k_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the method is absent from official ZONT API docs, was reconstructed by intercepting web-interface traffic, that it should be used cautiously, and that results should be verified with zont_list_devices. It omits what happens on delivery failure or whether commands are reversible, keeping it short of a 5.

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-loaded with the caution and example, then a clean per-parameter list. Slightly redundant in restating parameter meanings already shown in the inline example, but no sentence is filler.

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 6-parameter, reverse-engineered mutation tool with nested command_args and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, risk, sourcing of IDs, and a worked example. It does not address error/failure semantics, but the output schema covers return values.

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: every one of the 6 parameters is explained, including where to source object_id (z3k_config.heating_circuits / boiler_adapters), where firmware_version comes from and that omitting it drops the field, and is_guaranteed's meaning and default. This adds real meaning the schema lacks.

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 (send) and resource (undocumented z3k command) with the target device families named, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling zont_send_custom_command, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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 a concrete usage example (changing heating-circuit target temperature) and a caution plus a verification step via zont_list_devices, which is genuinely useful context. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over zont_send_custom_command or any when-not conditions.

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