bosch_camera_hard_reset

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses destructive impact, account-unpairing, the need to re-commission the camera, confirmation requirement, the error behavior, and the API endpoint called.

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 short, front-loaded with the critical DESTRUCTIVE label, and every sentence earns its place: what it does, why it is dangerous, what prerequisite must be set, and the exact API call.

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 this tool's destructive nature, the description covers every essential bit an agent needs: purpose, side effects, required confirm flag, error when not set, and the underlying endpoint. Output schema exists, so return-value details are not required here.

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. It does explain the confirm parameter thoroughly—boolean required or invalid_argument is raised—and connects camera to the API path. It never explicitly defines what value `camera` should take, but the parameter name and endpoint context make this mostly inferable.

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 names an exact operation—factory-reset one camera via an explicit API endpoint—and clearly differentiates itself from the many camera siblings by calling the operation DESTRUCTIVE and noting it unpairs the camera from the Bosch account. This makes it unambiguous compared to soft_reset and other non-destructive tools.

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 conveys the consequence of use (unpairing and full re-commissioning), which tells an agent when this is appropriate. It does not name an explicit alternative like soft_reset, but the destructive-consequence context provides clear usage guidance without needing exclusions spell out.

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