control_washer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that location-scoped washers reject omitted location with error 2207, and that the API generally cannot pick a wash program from scratch. These are meaningful behavioral caveats beyond a simple 'control' summary.

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 one-line action summary, a concise parameter block, and a compact caveat paragraph. Every sentence adds information, and the critical remote-start limitation is front-loaded where the agent will notice it.

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 operation constraints, location behavior, an error code, and the key prerequisite of calling get_washer_profile first. With an output schema present and no nested objects, the agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly; the only minor gap is explicit routing to control_washer_raw.

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 must compensate, and it does: it enumerates valid operation values, explains location's default and scope behavior, and points to get_washer_profile for exact accepted values. device_id is not elaborated, but its meaning is clear from the name and context.

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 opening line names a specific action set — start, stop, power off, or wake — on a washer, so the tool's purpose is immediately clear. It is distinguishable from the read/profile siblings because it is explicitly the mutation/control tool. The operation list removes ambiguity about what this tool can do.

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 gives concrete preconditions: call get_washer_profile first, confirm model support, and note that a remote START requires a physically selected/loaded cycle. It does not explicitly mention when to use control_washer_raw instead, but it provides enough context to know when this tool is appropriate.

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