call_preset_function

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'calls a function' but gives no indication of potential side effects, required permissions, return values, or irreversible actions. This is a significant gap for a tool that invokes arbitrary exposed functions.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no redundant words or filler, making it efficiently scannable for an AI agent.

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 that calls arbitrary functions with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what kind of functions can be called, what the 'parameters' object should contain, what the response looks like, or any safety considerations. This level of under-specification is inadequate for a potentially powerful and arbitrary action.

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 the baseline is 3. Each parameter (preset_name, function_name, parameters) has a basic schema description, and the description adds a slight semantic link by mentioning 'Remote Control Preset', but it doesn't elaborate on the 'parameters' object structure or the relationship beyond what the schema already implies.

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 ('Call a function') and the resource ('a function exposed via a Remote Control Preset'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_preset_property/set_preset_property by focusing on invocation rather than property access. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 usage through the phrase 'Remote Control Preset' and the context of sibling preset-related tools, suggesting it is for executing exposed functions rather than reading/writing properties. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, so usage is only implied.

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