set_band_alarm

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it preserves other alarms, verifies by read-back, reconciles lost writes without blindly retrying, and clarifies that timezone labels the wall clock without changing the band's timezone. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs beyond readOnly/destructive hints.

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 dense but every sentence carries necessary operational detail. It is front-loaded with the main action, then systematically covers time, weekdays, alarm_id, timezone, write reconciliation, and timeout. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given six parameters, no schema descriptions, and only basic annotations, this description provides complete guidance for calling the tool correctly. It covers create vs. update, value semantics, edge cases like one-time vs. daily alarms, and failure handling. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required.

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%, but the description compensates fully: it explains time format (HH:MM), weekday numbering (ISO 1=Monday..7=Sunday), the meanings of [] and all seven days, the role of alarm_id, timezone semantics, and the timeout range 5..90. This is strong semantic guidance for every meaningful parameter.

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 states a specific action ('Create or update one band alarm') with a clear resource and scope. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like set_band_reminder by focusing on band alarms, and from delete_band_schedule by covering create/update rather than deletion.

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?

It clearly explains when to create vs. update: omit alarm_id to create, provide a listed ID to update. It gives context on preserving other alarms and using complete desired values, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use this one.

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