Apply fan profile

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description adds value by disclosing the return payload ('the previous setting'), which lets an agent plan a revert. It doesn't state that the current channel setting is overwritten or what happens on a profile/channel mismatch.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return behavior; nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states the return value, and the fully documented schema covers the inputs. Only minor gaps remain (overwrite semantics, error behavior on a nonexistent profile), which are small for a simple assignment 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 coverage is 100% and all three parameters carry their own descriptions (device uid/prefix/name, channel name or label, profile uid or name), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds the 'fan/pump channel' framing and 'existing profile' constraint, which is baseline-level added meaning.

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 (assign) and resource (an existing profile) with the target (fan/pump channel), so the effect is unambiguous. The word 'existing' implicitly separates it from create_profile, though no sibling is named as an alternative.

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?

'see list_profiles' explicitly routes the agent to the discovery tool needed to obtain the profile argument, which is the main prerequisite. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g. use create_profile when the profile doesn't exist yet), so it's clear but not fully prescriptive.

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