bosch_camera_intrusion_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses mutation behavior ('Update[s]', 'unspecified fields are preserved'), return format, and a historical bug. It does not explicitly state authorization needs, rate limits, or idempotency, but covers key behavioral aspects like error conditions for distance >8.

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 moderately long but efficiently structured: purpose first, then key constraint, followed by parameter details. Every sentence adds value, though some historical notes could be condensed. Still, it remains focused and scannable.

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 4 parameters (1 required) and no output schema provided (but noted as existing), the description covers the return format and key behavioral details. The hardware constraint, version bug, and parameter ranges provide a complete picture for an agent to invoke correctly. No gaps remain.

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 coverage is 0%, so description fully compensates. Each parameter (mode, sensitivity, distance) is explained with accepted values, ranges, mapping to Bosch API fields, and version-specific behavior. This goes well beyond the bare schema, making parameter usage clear.

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 states it 'Update[s] the intrusion detection configuration for one Gen2 camera.' It specifies the resource (intrusion detection config), action (update), and scope (one Gen2 camera), distinguishing it from siblings like bosch_camera_intrusion_get (retrieval). The Gen2-only constraint further clarifies its domain.

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?

Explicitly notes Gen2-only requirement ('raises hardware_unsupported for Gen1 cameras') and 'At least one parameter must be provided.' It also provides version-specific advice (v1.6.0 vs v1.6.1). However, it does not compare with sibling set tools (e.g., motion_set) to guide when to use this over alternatives.

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