reset_channelReset a fan or pump channel to its hardware default by removing any profile or fixed speed, and return the previous setting.
Reset a fan/pump channel to its hardware default, removing any profile or fixed speed. Returns the previous setting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | Yes | Device uid, uid prefix (8+ chars) or exact device name, as shown by list_devices | |
| channel | Yes | Speed channel name (e.g. fan1) or its label |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real value on top: the result is a hardware default, prior profile/fixed speed is discarded, and the previous setting is returned. It stops short of saying whether the reset can be undone or what errors occur for a bad channel, so it is strong but not exhaustive.
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 with no filler; the action and its effect come first and the return-value note trails as a useful addendum. Nothing could be cut without losing 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 simple two-parameter mutation, the description covers the effect, the side effect on existing profiles/speeds, and the return value, which compensates for the missing output schema. Only edge behavior on invalid devices/channels is unstated, a minor gap.
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 100%, so both `device` and `channel` are already documented, including the accepted uid/uid-prefix/name forms and the fan1-or-label channel format. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 case.
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 (reset) and resource (fan/pump channel), plus the exact effect: restoring the hardware default and removing any profile or fixed speed. That removal clause implicitly separates it from siblings like apply_profile and set_fixed_speed, so an agent can pick it out without opening either schema.
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 phrase 'removing any profile or fixed speed' implies the situation that calls for this tool, but no sibling is named and no condition is given for when to reset versus re-applying a profile or calling set_fixed_speed. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.