skip_current_zone

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

The description adds the condition 'Does nothing if no schedule is running,' which is a useful behavioral trait beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). However, it does not elaborate on other behaviors like idempotency or side effects, leaving some aspects unspecified.

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 extremely concise (two sentences plus parameter list) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or extraneous information.

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 tool with a single parameter and an existing output schema, the description fully covers the action, condition, and parameter meaning. No additional return value explanation is needed, and the description is complete for agent understanding.

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 only describes device_id as a string with 0% coverage. The description adds 'Controller UUID,' clarifying the expected format beyond the schema. This adds significant meaning, compensating for the lack of schema 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 clearly states the action 'Skip to the next zone' and the context 'in the currently-running schedule.' This verb+resource combination effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like skip_schedule, which skips an entire schedule, and stop_watering, which stops all watering.

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 provides a clear usage condition: 'Does nothing if no schedule is running.' This tells the agent when the tool is applicable. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or mention when not to use it, which would improve guidance.

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