set_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does state one key invariant: 'Номер No не меняется никогда' (No never changes) and that it is part of the displayed name and referenced. It also implicitly restricts which fields can be modified by listing them. However, it does not describe the outcome on success, error scenarios, permissions, or side effects, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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: two sentences in Russian, no fluff. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds a constraint. It is appropriately sized, though it could be slightly more structured to separate the 'what' from the 'constraints'.

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 the 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is insufficient for correct invocation. It does not explain required parameters (handle, uid), how the 'fields' object should be populated, return values (though an output schema exists, its content is not provided to the agent), or error behavior. The tool has 5 parameters and only partial field explanation, so agents will likely struggle to use it correctly.

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 mentions 'name' and 'description' (which map directly to parameters) and lists additional fields like Fire1Count/Fire2Count and DelayTime/Hold/DelayRegime. But it does not explain the 'fields' parameter, nor the 'handle' and 'uid' parameters. The relationship between the listed fields and the 'fields' object is unclear, so an agent cannot reliably construct a valid call.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Change object fields' (Изменить поля объекта). It lists specific fields (name, description, Fire1Count/Fire2Count for zones, DelayTime/Hold/DelayRegime for scenarios) which distinguishes it from sibling set_* tools like set_device or set_plan. However, it does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools. While it lists allowed fields (implying it is for changing those specific object attributes), it lacks explicit routing or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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