press_bot

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds meaning annotations cannot: 'Confirmed means the Bot acknowledged actuation, not that an appliance changed state' clarifies the success signal, and the reuse rule explains the idempotency semantics in practice. It does not cover latency, failure modes, or what a non-confirmed response looks like, so not a full 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the ID rule, then the confirmation caveat. Nothing redundant and nothing buried.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema actuation tool, the description supplies the parameter contract and the interpretation of a confirmation, which is the main thing an agent could misread. Return shape beyond 'confirmed' and any precondition (e.g. Bot must be online) remain unspecified.

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 carries the burden — and it does, specifying the ID's character set and 8–100 length plus the retry semantics ('always reuse that ID'). It omits whether deduplication is time-windowed or server-persistent, which is the one remaining semantic gap for a request_id.

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 with scope: 'Physically press the Bot ONCE.' The word 'physically' plus 'ONCE' clearly separates it from read-only siblings like get_bot_status or get_button_events, which report on the Bot rather than actuate it.

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 strong invocation rules: one press per call, a per-intent ID, and explicitly what to do when the outcome is unknown (reuse the same ID rather than re-press). It never names a sibling alternative or says when not to use it, so it stops short of the 5 bar.

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