Change a setting

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: that the call returns all settings, and the accepted value ranges/units (0.5–2.0 in 0.1 steps, 1.0 normal). It stops short of saying whether changes apply immediately or persist across sessions.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and return behavior, then a dense but waste-free semicolon list of settings. The list is long but every clause carries required semantic information; only minor loss from packing it into one run-on sentence rather than a structured list.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description states the return ('all settings'), and the two parameters are fully explained. Missing pieces are error behavior for out-of-range values and whether the change takes effect immediately or requires a restart, which an agent might need for a write tool.

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 only 50% (the `setting` enum has no schema description), but the description fully compensates by defining every enum member and its meaning, plus the valid numeric range, step size, and the neutral value for water_flow. The `value` type ambiguity is resolved by the schema's own description ('number for water_flow; true/false or on/off otherwise').

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change one robot setting') plus the side effect ('return all settings'), which no sibling tool does. The sibling set is entirely cleaning-control and map/room tools, so there is no ambiguity about which tool changes configuration.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool named. Usage is only implied by the verb 'change', and nothing tells the agent whether to read current state first (e.g., via matic_status) or how the change interacts with an in-progress cleaning run.

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