set_sensor_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context such as 'admin override' for reachable and battery, the CLIP sensor limitation for battery, and 'where supported' for sensitivity. However, it does not explain side effects of enabling/disabling a sensor, permission requirements, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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 well-organized: a one-sentence summary followed by a clean Args list. Every line adds value, and there is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 the parameters well and an output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. Still, it omits usage context, admin/permission guidance, and what happens when optional parameters are left null or unsupported. It is adequate but not fully self-sufficient for an agent deciding when and how to invoke it.

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 thoroughly. It explains all five parameters in plain terms: sensor_id as numeric ID, on as enable/disable, reachable as admin override, battery with a 0–100 range and CLIP-sensor caveat, and sensitivity as motion sensitivity. This adds meaningful domain semantics beyond the raw schema types and defaults.

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 opens with 'Update a sensor's configuration,' identifying the action and resource. The Args list details which aspects of configuration can be changed, distinguishing it from read/rename/delete sensor siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools by name, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_sensor, rename_sensor, or delete_sensor. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or admin authorization requirements, even though some parameters are labeled as admin overrides. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Update' rather than explicitly instructed.

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