tuya_close_door

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the confirmation-gated behavior and that the command is local, but it does not mention possible side effects, failure modes, or whether the action is reversible. This is a meaningful but incomplete behavioral disclosure.

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 a single sentence of ten words, front-loads the action, and has no redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and the key invocation condition.

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?

For a one-parameter command tool, the description is mostly sufficient, but it omits details about error handling, what happens if confirmation is false, and the nature of the 'configured local close command.' An agent can likely call it correctly, but not with full confidence about consequences.

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 input schema has no parameter descriptions, but the description explains the core meaning of the single 'confirmation' boolean: the close command should only be sent after explicit confirmation. This adds semantic value beyond the schema and implies that confirmation must be true to trigger the action.

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 states a specific action ('Send') and object ('configured local close command'), which clearly maps to the tool's purpose of closing a door. It does not differentiate from siblings, but no siblings exist, so this is not a meaningful gap.

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 phrase 'only after explicit confirmation' directly tells the agent when it is appropriate to invoke the tool: if and only if the user has explicitly confirmed. It does not discuss alternatives, but with no sibling tools this is acceptable context.

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