update_feeder_setting

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects and behavior. It indicates this is a write operation and includes a caveat that unconfirmed keys 'may also work,' but it does not disclose persistence, confirmation of success, error behavior, or whether the device must be online.

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 compact sentences convey the operation, key mappings, value ranges, and a caveat without redundancy. The most critical information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 description covers the essential deviceId, key, and value semantics and references list_feeders for valid keys. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits what response to expect, how errors are surfaced, and whether the change is applied immediately or requires confirmation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds substantive semantic value by explaining common keys, their meanings, and expected 0/1 values, which goes beyond the schema's minimal parameter descriptions.

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 ('Change a numeric setting') and the resource ('on a feeder'), and lists common setting keys. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_feeders or feed_now, but the update operation is semantically distinct enough for an agent to infer purpose.

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 description implies when to use this tool by framing it as changing numeric feeder settings and referencing list_feeders for additional keys. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare it with feed_now, leaving some routing guidance implicit.

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