stop_watering

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the operation is immediate and affects both manual and scheduled watering. However, it does not clarify side effects such as whether schedules are permanently disabled, whether the device remains powered, or whether zones are returned to an idle state. This leaves ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the scope, and the immediacy with no filler. It is easy to parse, though some parameter detail could be added without harming conciseness.

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-optional-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the overall context is only partially complete. The core behavior is clear, but there is no mention of how the 'device' parameter should be used, what the result of the operation looks like, or what the expectations are. This is adequate but not fully helpful.

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 single optional 'device' parameter is not explained in the description. The word 'controller' hints at what 'device' may refer to, but the agent is not told where to obtain a valid value, whether null is acceptable, or how the parameter influences the scope. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 names a specific verb ('Stop'), a specific resource ('all watering'), and a clear scope ('on a controller', 'manual or scheduled'). It immediately distinguishes this from sibling tools like start_zone, start_zones, and run_schedule, so an agent can identify the correct operation.

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 (when you want to stop any watering), but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this instead of related tools like set_device_power or set_rain_delay. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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