set_rain_delay

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose side effects: whether it affects ongoing watering, whether it pauses schedules, or if it's persistent. It also doesn't state if the delay applies to all devices or just the specified device. This is a control tool with potential to disrupt watering, but these behaviors are undocumented.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the key action and constraints. It covers the most important semantic details (0 clears, max 7) without wasted words. This is appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool.

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 tool's complexity (control action, potential impact on watering) and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks effects on current operations, device selection semantics, and return behavior. The absence of an output schema also means the description should hint at what the response indicates. With zero schema coverage, it's incomplete for safe, correct usage.

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%, and the description only explains the 'days' parameter (0 clears, max 7). It does not explain the 'device' parameter at all—what it does, whether it's optional (schema shows default null but no description), or what happens when null. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema docs on the second parameter.

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 sets a rain delay in days, with specific semantics (0 clears, max 7). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like stop_watering and start_zone, as it's the only one dealing with rain delay. Slight vagueness: it doesn't explicitly say 'rain delay' is a watering-related setting, but it's clear enough.

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 implies when to use it (to set a rain delay), and the constraints (0 clears, max 7) provide usage boundaries. However, it doesn't explain when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., for immediate stop, use stop_watering). The context is clear but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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