set_ac

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and delivers: it explains side-effects of on=True (resumes last non-zero SystemMode, defaults to Cool=3), mode overriding on, routing of setpoint, and fan_speed acceptance/rejection behavior. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral disclosure that fully compensates for missing 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, using a clear lead sentence and concise bullet points. Every sentence adds information, with no filler or repetition.

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 control tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all parameter semantics, crucial behavioral nuances, and default behaviors. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without further documentation.

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?

The schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description explains each parameter's meaning, units, allowed values, and device-specific behavior (e.g., fan_speed forwarded vs rejected). This adds substantial value 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 starts with a clear verb+resource ('Control an AC') and enumerates the specific controllable aspects (on, mode, setpoint, fan_speed), distinguishing it from read-only sibling tools like get_ac and list_acs.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (to control AC settings) and its relationship to other tools is obvious from the sibling list, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It is clear context without exclusions.

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