start_watering

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the initiation of watering, a safety restriction, and parameter meanings. However, it does not state whether the action is destructive, if it overrides existing schedules, or what the response contains. Additional behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 concise with a title, safety note, and structured args list. Every sentence serves a purpose. No wasted words.

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 that an output schema exists (context signal), return values are likely covered. The description adequately explains the action, safety, and parameters. It could mention if it returns success/failure, but the output schema fulfills that role.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: 'device_id' from list_devices, 'zone' is 1-indexed, 'minutes' is duration, and 'allow_extended_runtime' allows >30 min. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'Start watering a specific zone for a given duration.' The verb 'start' and resource 'watering a zone' make the purpose specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'stop_watering' by focusing on initiation.

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 provides a clear use case and a safety note about extended runtimes requiring 'allow_extended_runtime=true'. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool (e.g., if the device is already watering) or suggest alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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