domotz_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists actions but does not disclose whether operations are read-only or destructive, authorization requirements, rate limits, or side effects. For example, 'create_team' implies mutation but lacks safety context.

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 well-structured: a brief summary of scope, a note on the action parameter, a clear table of actions, and examples. It is concise but comprehensive enough for the multi-action tool.

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 multi-action tool with no output schema, the description covers each action's purpose and parameter requirements with examples. It lacks return value details, but the examples partially compensate. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the correct action.

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 has 100% description coverage, but the description adds substantial meaning: it specifies which actions require which parameters (e.g., 'list_teams needs area_id', 'create_team needs area_id + body') and provides examples. This goes beyond the bare schema 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 tool handles 'Account information, API usage, areas, and teams,' and lists specific actions (get_user, api_usage, list_areas, list_teams, create_team) with verbs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on agents, devices, or alerts.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for account-level operations, with examples. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools for other domains, though the sibling list implies differentiation.

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